Cited by 228Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

A ballistic model of choice response time

Open access
Brown, Scott, Heathcote, Andrew·2005·Psychological Review

Abstract

Almost all models of response time (RT) use a stochastic accumulation process. To account for the benchmark RT phenomena, researchers have found it necessary to include between-trial variability in the starting point and/or the rate of accumulation, both in linear (R. Ratcliff & J. N. Rouder, 1998) and nonlinear (M. Usher & J. L. McClelland, 2001) models. The authors show that a ballistic (deterministic within-trial) model using a simplified version of M. Usher and J. L. McClelland's (2001) nonlinear accumulation process with between-trial variability in accumulation rate and starting point is capable of accounting for the benchmark behavioral phenomena. The authors successfully fit their model to R. Ratcliff and J. N. Rouder's (1998) data, which exhibit many of the benchmark phenomena.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-295x.112.1.117

Cites

59 of 59 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?

  • In decision making, the ballistic accumulator model could be considered an extreme version of autocorrelation in which each internal time step produces the same strength of sampled evidence within a trial.

    “In decision making, the ballistic accumulator model could be considered an extreme version of autocorrelation in which each internal time step produces the same strength of sampled evidence within a trial [97].”

    From Bayesian Brains without Probabilities (2016) · cites this paper as [97]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, S., & Heathcote, A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
2005
Volume
112
Issue
1
Pages
117-128
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W2083949963
Cited by
228
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 18
FWCI
5.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
reaction time (psychology), ballistic model, choice reaction time, accumulation rate
MeSH terms
Choice Behavior, Humans, Models, Psychological, Reaction Time, Stochastic Processes

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