Accounting for attention in sequential sampling models of decision making
Abstract
When making decisions, people tend to shift their attention back and forth between stimuli, choosing options that they look at more overall and immediately before their responses. These relationships, and others, are well-described by sequential sampling models that assume that evidence for a given alternative is collected over time in proportion to its subjective value, amplified by attention. Furthermore, findings from a number of studies support a causal effect of attention on choice. This research is mostly focused on two-alternative forced choice, though some work has confirmed these relationships in multi-attribute and multi-alternative choice. Finally, we discuss recent interest in understanding what drives attention during the choice process, with findings suggesting that attention is drawn to noisier and more salient stimuli in two-alternative choice, as well as higher-value options in multi-alternative choice.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When sampling information, attentional constraints mean that decision-makers typically focus on only one option at a time.
“When sampling information, attentional constraints mean that decision-makers typically focus on only one option at a time5.”
From Interpretable abstractions of artificial neural networks predict behavior and neural activity during human information gathering (2026) · cites this paper as [5]
We are more likely to choose options that we have attended to for longer regardless of the subjective value of those options.
“A plethora of research has revealed that we are more likely to choose options that we have attended to for longer regardless of the subjective value of those options (for review see ref. 50).”
From Paying attention to attention in depression (2019) · cites this paper as [50]
Cites
Sequential Tests of Statistical Hypotheses
Wald, A. (1945) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177731118 · Cited by 1,679 · see citing works
Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history
Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D., & McKoon, G. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007 · Cited by 1,630 · see citing works
Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice
Krajbich, I., Armel, C., & Rangel, A. (2010) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.2635 · Cited by 1,408 · see citing works
Self-citationSequential Tests of Statistical Hypotheses
Wald, A. (1992) · Springer series in statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0919-5_18 · Cited by 1,365 · see citing works
Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference
Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, C. (2003) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1150 · Cited by 924 · see citing works
Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionst model of decision making.
Roe, R. M., Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.370 · Cited by 765 · see citing works
Krajbich, I. M., & Rangel, A. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1101328108 · Cited by 732 · see citing works
Self-citationSequential Sampling Models in Cognitive Neuroscience: Advantages, Applications, and Extensions
Forstmann, B. U., Ratcliff, R., & Wagenmakers, E. (2015) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033645 · Cited by 613 · see citing works
Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention
Armel, K. C., Beaumel, A., & Rangel, A. (2008) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500000413 · Cited by 420 · see citing works
Decision Making and Sequential Sampling from Memory
Shadlen, M. N., & Shohamy, D. (2016) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.04.036 · Cited by 412 · see citing works
Perceptual Decision Making in Rodents, Monkeys, and Humans
Hanks, T. D., & Summerfield, C. (2017) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.12.003 · Cited by 388 · see citing works
Lim, S.-L., O'Doherty, J. P., & Rangel, A. (2011) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1246-11.2011 · Cited by 329 · see citing works
Eye tracking and pupillometry are indicators of dissociable latent decision processes.
Cavanagh, J. F., Wiecki, T. V., Kochar, A., & Frank, M. J. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0035813 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
The multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator model of context effects in multialternative choice.
Trueblood, J. S., Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2014) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0036137 · Cited by 272 · see citing works
Towal, R. B., Mormann, M. M., & Christof Koch, A. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1304429110 · Cited by 254 · see citing works
Dynamic Stochastic Models for Decision Making under Time Constraints
Diederich, A. (1997) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1006/jmps.1997.1167 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
Biasing moral decisions by exploiting the dynamics of eye gaze
Pärnamets, P., Johansson, P., Hall, L., Balkenius, C., Spivey, M. J., & Richardson, D. C. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1415250112 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Optimal policy for value-based decision-making
Tajima, S., Drugowitsch, J., & Pouget, A. (2016) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms12400 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Stewart, N., Hermens, F., & Matthews, W. J. (2015) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1854 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Multialternative decision by sampling: A model of decision making constrained by process data.
Noguchi, T., & Stewart, N. (2018) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000102 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Thura, D., & Cisek, P. (2016) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2230-15.2016 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Search for Information on Multiple Products
Ke, T. T., Shen, Z. M., & Villas‐Boas, J. M. (2016) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2316 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
The Attentional Drift Diffusion Model of Simple Perceptual Decision-Making
Tavares, G., Perona, P., & Rangel, A. (2017) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2017.00468 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Meißner, M., Musalem, A., & Huber, J. C. (2015) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmr.13.0467 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Prospect theory reflects selective allocation of attention.
Pachur, T., Schulte‐Mecklenbeck, M., Murphy, R. O., & Hertwig, R. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000406 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Attention and choice across domains.
Smith, S. M., & Krajbich, I. M. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000482 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Self-citationGaze bias differences capture individual choice behaviour
Thomas, A. W., Molter, F., Krajbich, I. M., Heekeren, H. R., & Mohr, P. N. C. (2019) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0584-8 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Self-citationOrbitofrontal Cortex Value Signals Depend on Fixation Location during Free Viewing
McGinty, V. B., Rangel, A., & Newsome, W. T. (2016) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.04.045 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Competing theories of multialternative, multiattribute preferential choice.
Turner, B. M., Schley, D. R., Muller, C. G., & Tsetsos, K. (2017) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000089 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Improving Out-of-Sample Predictions Using Response Times and a Model of the Decision ProcessPreprint
Clithero, J. A. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2018.02.007 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Goal-directed visual attention drives health goal priming: An eye-tracking experiment.
van der Laan, L. N., Papies, E. K., Hooge, I. T. C., & Smeets, P. A. M. (2016) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/hea0000410 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
An attentional drift diffusion model over binary-attribute choice
Fisher, G. (2017) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.007 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Konovalov, A., & Krajbich, I. M. (2016) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms12438 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Self-citationVisual attention in multi-attributes choices: What can eye-tracking tell us?
Krucien, N., Ryan, M., & Hermens, F. (2017) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2017.01.018 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Motoki, K., Saito, T. I., Nouchi, R., Kawashima, R., & Sugiura, M. (2017) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.09.014 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Eye‐tracking Social Preferences
Jiang, T. X., Potters, J., & Funaki, Y. (2015) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1899 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Salient nutrition labels increase the integration of health attributes in food decision-making
Enax, L., Krajbich, I. M., & Weber, B. (2016) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500004563 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Self-citationRyan, M., Krucien, N., & Hermens, F. (2017) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.3626 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Testing necessary regional frontal contributions to value assessment and fixation-based updating
Vaidya, A. R., & Fellows, L. K. (2015) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms10120 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Balcombe, K., Fraser, I., Williams, L., et al. (2017) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2017.09.023 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
The influence of attention on value integration
Kunar, M. A., Watson, D. G., Tsetsos, K., & Nick Chater, A. (2017) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-017-1340-7 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Perceptual but not complex moral judgments can be biased by exploiting the dynamics of eye-gaze.
Newell, B. R., & Pelley, M. E. L. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000386 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Implications of visual attention phenomena for models of preferential choice.
Mullett, T. L., & Stewart, N. (2016) · Decision · doi:10.1037/dec0000049 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Bayesian analysis of the piecewise diffusion decision model
Holmes, W. R., & Trueblood, J. S. (2017) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0901-y · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Multi-attribute, multi-alternative models of choice: Choice, reaction time, and process tracing
Cohen, A. L., Kang, N., & Leise, T. (2017) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.08.001 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Ashby, N. J. S., Jekel, M., Dickert, S., & Glöckner, A. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000279 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Multi-stage sequential sampling models with finite or infinite time horizon and variable boundaries
Diederich, A., & Oswald, P. (2016) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2016.02.010 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
The Role of Salience and Attention in Choice under Risk: An Experimental InvestigationPreprint
Mormann, M. M. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2778822 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
A computational model of the attention process in risky choice.
Johnson, J. G., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2016) · Decision · doi:10.1037/dec0000050 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Attentional accounting: Voluntary spatial attention increases budget category prioritization.
Mrkva, K., & Leaf Van Boven, A. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000347 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Colas, J. T. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186822 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Gaze Bias Differences Capture Individual Choice BehaviorPreprint
Thomas, A. W., Molter, F., Krajbich, I., Heekeren, H., & Mohr, P. N. C. (2017) · bioRxiv · doi:10.1101/228825 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citationInformation foraging for perceptual decisions.
Ludwig, C. J. H., & Evens, D. R. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000299 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Learning Where to Look for High Value Improves Decision Making Asymmetrically
Colas, J., & Lu, J. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02000 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Paying attention to attention in depression
Keller, A. S., Leikauf, J. E., Holt-Gosselin, B., Staveland, B. R., & Williams, L. M. (2019) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-019-0616-1 · Cited by 329 · see citing works
D’Ambrogio, S., Grohn, J., Khalighinejad, N., Mattar, M. G., Hunt, L., & Rushworth, M. F. S. (2026) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-026-02342-9 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Krajbich, I.
- Affiliations
- The Ohio State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Krajbich, Ian
- ORCID
- Krajbich, Ian
- Venue
- Current Opinion in Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-10
- Volume
- 29
- Pages
- 6-11
- ISSN
- 2352-250X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2929612471
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9
- FWCI
- 1.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Current Opinion in Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1554837)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Keywords
- attention, sequential sampling models, decision-making, two-alternative forced choice, evidence accumulation, attentional bias, stimulus salience, option value
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Humans, Causality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review