The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Modeling Response Times for Two-Choice Decisions
Abstract
The diffusion model for two-choice real-time decisions is applied to four psychophysical tasks. The model reveals how stimulus information guides decisions and shows how the information is processed through time to yield sometimes correct and sometimes incorrect decisions. Rapid two-choice decisions yield multiple empirical measures: response times for correct and error responses, the probabilities of correct and error responses, and a variety of interactions between accuracy and response time that depend on instructions and task difficulty. The diffusion model can explain all these aspects of the data for the four experiments we present. The model correctly accounts for error response times, something previous models have failed to do. Variability within the decision process explains how errors are made, and variability across trials correctly predicts when errors are faster than correct responses and when they are slower.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“the discharge on any one trial resembles a random walk to a threshold representing the level of evidence required to reach a decision, at which point the decision process terminates”
From Response of Neurons in the Lateral Intraparietal Area during a Combined Visual Discrimination Reaction Time Task (2002) · cites this paper as Ratcliff and Rouder, 1998
In the citing paper
“Psychophysical and neural data1 support a model termed drift diffusion6, random walk5,7 or race8 in which a decision is made when the accumulated noisy evidence (decision variable) reaches a criterion level, termed a decision bound.”
From Changes of mind in decision-making (2009) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“Several formalisms propose that a representation of noisy evidence is evaluated against a criterion to produce a decision4-8.”
From Changes of mind in decision-making (2009) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“The ensuing tradeoff between speed and accuracy is explained by sequential sampling with optional stopping models in which evidence is accumulated to some stopping criterion or bound (Link, 1975; Ratcliff and Rouder, 1998).”
From A common mechanism underlies changes of mind about decisions and confidence (2016) · cites this paper as Ratcliff and Rouder, 1998
In the citing paper
“The class of bounded sequential sampling models, including many variants (Wald, 1947; Stone, 1960; Laming, 1968; Link, 1975; Good, 1979; Luce, 1986; Ratcliff and Rouder, 1998) explains the tradeoff between speed and accuracy, and many of the essential steps have correlates in neurophysiology (Romo et al., 2002; Heekeren et al., 2004; Ploran et al., 2007; Heitz and Schall, 2012; White et al., 2012;”
From A common mechanism underlies changes of mind about decisions and confidence (2016) · cites this paper as Ratcliff and Rouder, 1998
In the citing paper
“Many models are proposed to explain the coordination of RT and choice accuracy in 2-choice tasks 4,18,25–27. These models share a common feature: a termination bound is applied to some form of evidence representation, the decision variable.”
From Decision-making with multiple alternatives (2008) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“A simple diffusion model provides a plausible account for the stimulation effects in both areas (Fig. 5).”
From Microstimulation of macaque area LIP affects decision-making in a motion discrimination task (2006) · cites this paper as [17]
In the citing paper
“On the other hand, human studies commonly report skewed RT distributions with a long right tail, which is well captured by the diffusion model (Ratcliff, 1978; Luce, 1986; Ratcliff and Rouder, 1998; Usher and McClelland, 2001; Sigman and Dehaene, 2005) but not the existing neural circuit model.”
From Decision Making in Recurrent Neuronal Circuits (2008) · cites this paper as Ratcliff and Rouder, 1998
Citations
Cites
An introduction to probability theory and its applications
(1958) · Journal of the Franklin Institute · doi:10.1016/0016-0032(58)90688-4 · Cited by 29,621
An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications.
Bharucha-Reid, A. T., & Feller, W. (1967) · American Mathematical Monthly · doi:10.2307/2314609 · Cited by 6,365
Ratcliff, R. (1978) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.85.2.59 · Cited by 4,513
Self-citationDecision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment.
Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.3.432 · Cited by 1,925
Information theory of choice-reaction times
Laming, D. (1968) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 945
Models for choice-reaction time
Stone, M. (1960) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02289729 · Cited by 696
Decision Processes in Visual Perception
(1979) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2013-0-11654-6 · Cited by 513
A Sequential Theory of Psychological Discrimination
Link, S. W., & Heath, R. A. (1975) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291481 · Cited by 492
Retrieval processes in recognition memory.
Ratcliff, R., & Murdock, B. B. (1976) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.83.3.190 · Cited by 481
Self-citationComparing decision bound and exemplar models of categorization
Maddox, W. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1993) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03211715 · Cited by 373
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Estes W.K., 1995, Sources of coherence in text comprehension, 51
- Luce R.D., 1986, Response times
- Ratcliff R., Psychological Review
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 1,000
Affect and Decision Making: Insights and Predictions from Computational Models
Roberts, I. D., & Hutcherson, C. A. C. (2019) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.04.005 · Cited by 82
Optimal Dynamic Information Acquisition
Zhong, W. (2017) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta17787 · Cited by 76
Conflict tasks and the diffusion framework: Insight in model constraints based on psychological laws
Servant, M., Montagnini, A., & Burle, B. (2014) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.03.002 · Cited by 83
Mack, M. L., & Preston, A. R. (2015) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.12.015 · Cited by 86
Rouder, J. N., Province, J. M., Morey, R. D., Gómez, P., & Heathcote, A. (2014) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/s11336-013-9396-3 · Cited by 75
Self-citationTuerlinckx, F. (2004) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03206552 · Cited by 76
A cognitive latent variable model for the simultaneous analysis of behavioral and personality data
Vandekerckhove, J. (2014) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2014.06.004 · Cited by 79
Holmes, W. R., Trueblood, J. S., & Heathcote, A. (2016) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.11.002 · Cited by 80
A diffusion model explanation of the worst performance rule for reaction time and IQ
Ratcliff, R., Schmiedek, F., & McKoon, G. (2007) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.12.002 · Cited by 77
Self-citationResponse-time tests of logical-rule models of categorization.
Little, D. R., Nosofsky, R. M., & Denton, S. E. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0021330 · Cited by 74
Capturing the temporal evolution of choice across prefrontal cortex
Hunt, L. T., Behrens, T. E. J., Hosokawa, T., Wallis, J. D., & Kennerley, S. W. (2015) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.11945 · Cited by 81
Model-based cognitive neuroscience
Palmeri, T. J., Love, B. C., & Turner, B. M. (2016) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2016.10.010 · Cited by 82
Comparing categorization models.
Rouder, J. N., & Ratcliff, R. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.63 · Cited by 73
Self-citationA tutorial on joint models of neural and behavioral measures of cognition
Palestro, J. J., Bahg, G., Sederberg, P. B., Lu, Z., Mark Steyvers, B., & Turner, B. M. (2018) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2018.03.003 · Cited by 76
Grasman, R. P. P. P., Wagenmakers, E., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2009) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2009.01.006 · Cited by 77
Hou, H., Zheng, Q., Zhao, Y., Pouget, A., & Gu, Y. (2019) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2019.08.038 · Cited by 72
A new model of decision processing in instrumental learning tasks
Miletić, S., Boag, R. J., Trutti, A. C., Stevenson, N., Forstmann, B. U., & Heathcote, A. (2021) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.63055 · Cited by 77
Rowe, J. B., Hughes, L. E., & Nimmo‐Smith, I. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.045 · Cited by 77
Advancing Research on Cognitive Processes in Social and Personality Psychology
Johnson, D. J., Hopwood, C. J., Cesario, J., & Pleskac, T. J. (2017) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550617703174 · Cited by 79
Accumulators, Neurons, and Response Time
Schall, J. D. (2019) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2019.10.001 · Cited by 75
Optimal Temporal Decoding of Neural Population Responses in a Reaction-Time Visual Detection Task
Chen, Y., Geisler, W. S., & Seidemann, E. (2008) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00698.2007 · Cited by 71
Assessing the speed-accuracy trade-off effect on the capacity of information processing.
Donkin, C., Little, D. R., & Houpt, J. W. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/a0035947 · Cited by 71
Putting noise into neurophysiological models of simple decision making
Ratcliff, R. (2001) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/85956 · Cited by 72
Self-citationUnconscious information changes decision accuracy but not confidence
Vlassova, A., Donkin, C., & Pearson, J. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1403619111 · Cited by 70
Time pressure affects the efficiency of perceptual processing in decisions under conflict
Dambacher, M., & Hübner, R. (2014) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0542-z · Cited by 70
Cognitive workload measurement and modeling under divided attention.
Castro, S. C., Strayer, D. L., Matzke, D., & Heathcote, A. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000638 · Cited by 70
Response Times and Decision‐Making
Donkin, C., & Brown, S. D. (2018) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119170174.epcn509 · Cited by 75
A neural circuit model of decision uncertainty and change-of-mind
Atiya, N. A. A., Rañó, I., Prasad, G., & Wong‐Lin, K. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10316-8 · Cited by 69
Towards explaining spatial touch perception: Weighted integration of multiple location codes
Badde, S., & Heed, T. (2016) · Cognitive Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/02643294.2016.1168791 · Cited by 75
Efficient sampling and noisy decisions
Heng, J., Woodford, M., & Polanía, R. (2020) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.54962 · Cited by 71
A Population Coding Account for Systematic Variation in Saccadic Dead Time
Ludwig, C. J. H., Mildinhall, J. W., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2006) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00652.2006 · Cited by 70
An integrated perspective on the relation between response speed and intelligence
van Ravenzwaaij, D., Brown, S. D., & Wagenmakers, E. (2011) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.002 · Cited by 71
Pedersen, M. L., & Frank, M. J. (2020) · Computational Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1007/s42113-020-00084-w · Cited by 67
Overcoming indecision by changing the decision boundary.
Malhotra, G., Leslie, D. S., Ludwig, C. J. H., & Bogacz, R. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000286 · Cited by 70
An evaluation of the Vincentizing method of forming group-level response time distributions
Rouder, J. N., & Speckman, P. L. (2004) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196589 · Cited by 67
Self-citationNosofsky, R. M., & Stanton, R. D. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.3.608 · Cited by 66
Decisions reduce sensitivity to subsequent information
Bronfman, Z. Z., Brezis, N., Moran, R., Tsetsos, K., Donner, T. H., & Usher, M. (2015) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.0228 · Cited by 69
Beyond decision! Motor contribution to speed–accuracy trade-off in decision-making
Spieser, L., Servant, M., Hasbroucq, T., & Burle, B. (2016) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1172-9 · Cited by 66
dockerHDDM: A User-Friendly Environment for Bayesian Hierarchical Drift-Diffusion Modeling
Pan, W., Geng, H., Zhang, L., Fengler, A., Frank, M. J., Zhang, R., & Chuan-Peng, H. (2025) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/25152459241298700 · Cited by 70
A dynamic stimulus-driven model of signal detection.
Turner, B. M., Zandt, T. V., & Brown, S. D. (2011) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0025191 · Cited by 65
A non-representational approach to imagined action
van Rooij, I., Bongers, R. M., & Haselager, F. G. (2002) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/s0364-0213(02)00065-4 · Cited by 65
Temporal dynamics of decision-making during motion perception in the visual cortex
Grossberg, S., & Pilly, P. K. (2008) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2008.02.019 · Cited by 67
Khalvati, K., Kiani, R., & Rao, R. P. N. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25419-4 · Cited by 64
Hedge, C., Powell, G., Bompas, A., Vivian-Griffiths, S., & Sumner, P. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000164 · Cited by 67
Boag, R. J., Strickland, L. J. G., Loft, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2019) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.05.011 · Cited by 67
Mental speed is high until age 60 as revealed by analysis of over a million participants
von Krause, M., Radev, S. T., & Voß, A. (2022) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01282-7 · Cited by 79
Temporal expectation and information processing: A model-based analysis
Jepma, M., Wagenmakers, E., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2011) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.014 · Cited by 66
Modeling aging effects on two-choice tasks: Response signal and response time data.
Ratcliff, R. (2008) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/a0013930 · Cited by 64
Self-citationClassic EEG motor potentials track the emergence of value-based decisions
Gluth, S., Rieskamp, J., & Büchel, C. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.005 · Cited by 71
Fang, X., & Wang, J. (2020) · Annual Review of Biophysics · doi:10.1146/annurev-biophys-121219-081656 · Cited by 64
Human Supervisory Control of Robotic Teams: Integrating Cognitive Modeling with Engineering Design
Peters, J. R., Srivastava, V., Taylor, G. S., Surana, A., Eckstein, M. P., & Bullo, F. (2015) · IEEE Control Systems · doi:10.1109/mcs.2015.2471056 · Cited by 64
Time and decision making in humans
Klapproth, F. (2008) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/cabn.8.4.509 · Cited by 72
On-line acoustic and semantic interpretation of talker information
Creel, S. C., & Tumlin, M. A. (2011) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.06.005 · Cited by 67
Self-prioritization and perceptual matching: The effects of temporal construal
Golubickis, M., Falbén, J. K., Sahraie, A., Visokomogilski, A., Cunningham, W. A., Sui, J., & Macrae, C. N. (2017) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-017-0722-3 · Cited by 64
Quantifying the benefits of using decision models with response time and accuracy data
Stafford, T., Pirrone, A., Croucher, M., & Krystalli, A. (2020) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-020-01372-w · Cited by 67
Age differences in diffusion model parameters: a meta-analysis
Theisen, M., Lerche, V., von Krause, M., & Voß, A. (2020) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-020-01371-8 · Cited by 62
Gamelike features might not improve data
Hawkins, G. E., Rae, B., Nesbitt, K. V., & Brown, S. D. (2013) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0264-3 · Cited by 61
Oculomotor capture by transient events: A comparison of abrupt onsets, offsets, motion, and flicker
Ludwig, C. J. H., Ranson, A., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2008) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/8.14.11 · Cited by 64
Rapid makes risky: Time pressure increases risk seeking in decisions from experience
Madan, C. R., Spetch, M. L., & Ludvig, E. A. (2015) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2015.1055274 · Cited by 63
Klauer, K. C., & Kellen, D. (2018) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2017.12.003 · Cited by 61
The role of passing time in decision-making.
Evans, N. J., Hawkins, G. E., & Brown, S. D. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000725 · Cited by 61
Giora, R., Gazal, O., Goldstein, I., Fein, O., & Stringaris, A. K. (2012) · Metaphor and Symbol · doi:10.1080/10926488.2012.638823 · Cited by 65
Response times from ensembles of accumulators
Zandbelt, B. B., Purcell, B. A., Palmeri, T. J., Logan, G. D., & Schall, J. D. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1310577111 · Cited by 61
A subjective utilitarian theory of moral judgment.
Cohen, D. J., & Ahn, M. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000210 · Cited by 61
Effect of Interactions between Harvester Ants on Forager Decisions
Davidson, J. D., Arauco-Aliaga, R. P., Crow, S. P., Gordon, D. M., & Goldman, M. S. (2016) · Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.3389/fevo.2016.00115 · Cited by 61
Exploring the self-ownership effect: Separating stimulus and response biases.
Golubickis, M., Falbén, J. K., Cunningham, W. A., & Macrae, C. N. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000455 · Cited by 62
Finding decodable information that can be read out in behaviour
Grootswagers, T., Cichy, R. M., & Carlson, T. A. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.06.022 · Cited by 67
Weigard, A. S., Heathcote, A., Matzke, D., & Huang‐Pollock, C. L. (2019) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702619838466 · Cited by 62
Computational validity: using computation to translate behaviours across species
Redish, A. D., Kepecs, Á., Anderson, L. M., Calvin, O. L., Grissom, N. M., Haynos, A. F., Heilbronner, S. R., Herman, A. B., Jacob, S., Ma, S., et al. (2021) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0525 · Cited by 63
Selection and inhibition mechanisms for human voluntary action decisions
Zhang, J., Hughes, L. E., & Rowe, J. B. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.058 · Cited by 62
Dainer‐Best, J., Lee, H. Y., Shumake, J., Yeager, D. S., & Beevers, C. G. (2018) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000602 · Cited by 62
McDougle, S. D., & Collins, A. G. E. (2020) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-020-01774-z · Cited by 63
A Dual‐Process Diffusion Model
Alós‐Ferrer, C. (2016) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1960 · Cited by 58
On second thoughts: changes of mind in decision-making
Stone, C., Mattingley, J. B., & Rangelov, D. (2022) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2022.02.004 · Cited by 65
Decision making on spatially continuous scales.
Ratcliff, R. (2018) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000117 · Cited by 60
Self-citationFontanesi, L., Palminteri, S., & Lebreton, M. P. (2019) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-019-00723-1 · Cited by 65
Urgency, leakage, and the relative nature of information processing in decision-making.
Trueblood, J. S., Heathcote, A., Evans, N. J., & Holmes, W. R. (2020) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000255 · Cited by 57
Hedge, C., Vivian-Griffiths, S., Powell, G., Bompas, A., & Sumner, P. (2019) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2019.102797 · Cited by 60
Zhang, C., Lakens, D., & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/17127 · Cited by 60
Hierarchical Approximate Bayesian Computation
Turner, B. M., & Zandt, T. V. (2013) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/s11336-013-9381-x · Cited by 56
Modeling fan effects on the time course of associative recognition
Schneider, D. W., & Anderson, J. R. (2011) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.11.001 · Cited by 59
Classifying Vulnerability to Sleep Deprivation Using Baseline Measures of Psychomotor Vigilance
Patanaik, A., Kwoh, C. K., Chua, E. C.-P., Gooley, J. J., & Chee, M. W. L. (2015) · SLEEP · doi:10.5665/sleep.4664 · Cited by 56
Limits in decision making arise from limits in memory retrieval
Giguère, G., & Love, B. C. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1219674110 · Cited by 60
Schmitz, F., & Wilhelm, O. (2016) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence4040013 · Cited by 59
Wainstein, G., Rojas‐Líbano, D., Medel, V., Alnæs, D., Kolskår, K. K., Endestad, T., Laeng, B., Ossandón, T., Crossley, N. A., Matar, E., et al. (2021) · Network Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/netn_a_00205 · Cited by 55
The mechanism underlying inhibition of saccadic return
Ludwig, C. J. H., Farrell, S., Ellis, L. A., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2009) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.04.002 · Cited by 53
Factoring out nondecision time in choice reaction time data: Theory and implications.
Verdonck, S., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2015) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000019 · Cited by 57
Integrating Cognitive Process and Descriptive Models of Attitudes and Preferences
Hawkins, G. E., Marley, A. A. J., Heathcote, A., Flynn, T. N., Louviere, J. J., & Brown, S. D. (2013) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12094 · Cited by 52
Conflict and the Stochastic-Dominance Principle of Decision Making
Diederich, A., & Busemeyer, J. R. (1999) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00167 · Cited by 52
Are Unshifted Distributional Models Appropriate for Response Time?
Rouder, J. N. (2005) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/s11336-005-1297-7 · Cited by 52
Self-citationKamienkowski, J. E., Pashler, H., Dehaene, S., & Sigman, M. (2011) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.010 · Cited by 54
Ploran, E. J., Tremel, J. J., Nelson, S. M., & Wheeler, M. E. (2011) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr055 · Cited by 52
An extension of the exemplar-based random-walk model to separable-dimension stimuli
Cohen, A. L., & Nosofsky, R. M. (2003) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0022-2496(02)00031-7 · Cited by 51
A diffusion model account of normal and impaired readers
Ratcliff, R., Perea, M., Colangelo, A., & Buchanan, L. (2004) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2004.02.051 · Cited by 56
Self-citationVoß, A., Voß, J., & Klauer, K. C. (2009) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1348/000711009x477581 · Cited by 50
Modeling cognitive load effects of conversation between a passenger and driver
Tillman, G., Strayer, D., Eidels, A., & Heathcote, A. (2017) · Attention, perception & psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-017-1337-2 · Cited by 44
Cognitive control and capacity for prospective memory in complex dynamic environments.
Boag, R. J., Strickland, L. J. G., Heathcote, A., Neal, A. F., & Loft, S. D. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000599 · Cited by 52
Diffusion Modelling Reveals the Decision Making Processes Underlying Negative Judgement Bias in Rats
Hales, C. A., Robinson, E. S. J., & Houghton, C. J. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152592 · Cited by 49
Cognitive Control as a Multivariate Optimization Problem
Ritz, H., Leng, X., & Shenhav, A. (2022) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01822 · Cited by 57
Evidence or Confidence: What Is Really Monitored during a Decision?
Lee, D. G., Jean Daunizeau, A., & Pezzulo, G. (2023) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-023-02255-9 · Cited by 57
Metadata
- Authors
- Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. N.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1998-09
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 347-356
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2100476792
- Cited by
- 1,478
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 45 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 87 · 2023: 88 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 99 · 2020: 94 · 2019: 91 · 2018: 92 · 2017: 79 · 2016: 82 · 2015: 72 · 2014: 68 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 41
- FWCI
- 4.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Keywords
- diffusion models, reaction time (psychology), decision accuracy, reaction time variability, task difficulty, real-time 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
