Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,223

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Sequential Sampling Models for Two-Choice Reaction Time.

Open access
Ratcliff, Roger, Smith, Philip L.·2004·Psychological Review

Abstract

The authors evaluated 4 sequential sampling models for 2-choice decisions--the Wiener diffusion, Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) diffusion, accumulator, and Poisson counter models--by fitting them to the response time (RT) distributions and accuracy data from 3 experiments. Each of the models was augmented with assumptions of variability across trials in the rate of accumulation of evidence from stimuli, the values of response criteria, and the value of base RT across trials. Although there was substantial model mimicry, empirical conditions were identified under which the models make discriminably different predictions. The best accounts of the data were provided by the Wiener diffusion model, the OU model with small-to-moderate decay, and the accumulator model with long-tailed (exponential) distributions of criteria, although the last was unable to produce error RTs shorter than correct RTs. The relationship between these models and 3 recent, neurally inspired models was also examined.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-295x.111.2.333

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 1,223

Metadata

Authors
Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. L.
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
2004
Volume
111
Issue
2
Pages
333-367
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W2009708711
Cited by
1,223
References
10
FWCI
15.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of Sequential Sampling Models for Two-Choice Reaction Time. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0033-295x.111.2.333
The paper
Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. L. (2004). A Comparison of Sequential Sampling Models for Two-Choice Reaction Time. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.111.2.333

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.