Cited by 153Neural dynamics and brain functionNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

The dynamics of choice among multiple alternatives

McMillen, Tyler, Holmes, Philip·2006·Journal of Mathematical Psychology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jmp.2005.10.003

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The hypothesis that the bounded accumulation framework applies to decisions among 4 choices was suggested by theorists but had not been tested.

    “This hypothesis was suggested by theorists5,28,29 but had not been tested.”

    From Decision-making with multiple alternatives (2008) · cites this paper as [29]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McMillen, T., & Holmes, P.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Corresponding author
McMillen, Tyler
Venue
Journal of Mathematical Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-02
Volume
50
Issue
1
Pages
30-57
ISSN
0022-2496 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2149225761
Cited by
153
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 11
FWCI
4.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Mathematical Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
sequential probability ratio test, race model, drift-diffusion model, Hick's law, reaction time, decision time, information gain, neural decision-making

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