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 501–600 of 1,000
Visual Object Perception and Long-term Memory
Palmeri, T. J., & Tarr, M. J. (2008) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195305487.003.0006 · Cited by 37
Fast and high‐quality decision‐making: The role of behavioral integration
Shepherd, N. G., Mooi, E., Elbanna, S., & Lou, B. (2023) · European Management Review · doi:10.1111/emre.12573 · Cited by 36
Electrophysiological correlates of self-prioritization
Sui, J., He, X., Golubickis, M., Svensson, S. L., & Macrae, C. N. (2023) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2023.103475 · Cited by 36
Noorbaloochi, S., Sharon, D., & McClelland, J. L. (2015) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0017-15.2015 · Cited by 39
Linking reward expectation to behavior in the basal ganglia
Gold, J. I. (2002) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/s0166-2236(02)00002-4 · Cited by 38
Koob, V., Mackenzie, I. G., Ulrich, R., Leuthold, H., & Janczyk, M. (2022) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2022.101528 · Cited by 35
The neural network RTNet exhibits the signatures of human perceptual decision-making
Rafiei, F., Shekhar, M., & Rahnev, D. (2024) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-024-01914-8 · Cited by 37
Nahorna, O., Berthommier, F., & Schwartz, J. (2015) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.4904536 · Cited by 35
Dutilh, G., Vandekerckhove, J., Ly, A., Matzke, D., Pedroni, A., Frey, R., Rieskamp, J., & Wagenmakers, E. (2017) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-017-1304-y · Cited by 37
How subjective idea valuation energizes and guides creative idea generation.
Lopez‐Persem, A., Moreno-Rodriguez, S., Ovando‐Tellez, M., Bieth, T., Guiet, S., Brochard, J., & Volle, E. (2023) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0001165 · Cited by 41
Toward a model-based cognitive neuroscience of mind wandering
Hawkins, G. E., Mittner, M., Boekel, W., Heathcote, A., & Forstmann, B. U. (2015) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.09.053 · Cited by 35
Fosco, W. D., White, C. N., & Hawk, L. W. (2016) · Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology · doi:10.1007/s10802-016-0222-0 · Cited by 35
Task Switching: On the Relation of Cognitive Flexibility with Cognitive Capacity
Schmitz, F., & Krämer, R. J. (2023) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence11040068 · Cited by 40
Stimulus probability effects on temporal bisection performance of mice (Mus musculus)
Akdoğan, B., & Balcı, F. (2015) · Animal Cognition · doi:10.1007/s10071-015-0909-6 · Cited by 34
Bayes factors for the linear ballistic accumulator model of decision-making
Evans, N. J., & Brown, S. D. (2017) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0887-5 · Cited by 34
Implications of individual differences in on-average null effects.
Miller, J. O., & Schwarz, W. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000367 · Cited by 35
Advances in techniques for imposing reciprocity in brain-behavior relations
Turner, B. M., Palestro, J. J., Miletić, S., & Forstmann, B. U. (2019) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.04.018 · Cited by 36
Evidence accumulation is biased by motivation: A computational account
Gęsiarz, F., Cahill, D., & Sharot, T. (2019) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007089 · Cited by 34
Robust Standards in Cognitive Science
Crüwell, S., Stefan, A. M., & Evans, N. J. (2019) · Computational Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1007/s42113-019-00049-8 · Cited by 35
Cox, G. E., & Criss, A. H. (2020) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000195 · Cited by 34
Tran, N.-H., van Maanen, L., Heathcote, A., & Matzke, D. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.608287 · Cited by 37
Perceptual consequences of feature-based attentional enhancement and suppression
Ho, T. C., Brown, S. D., Abuyo, N. A., Ku, E.-H. J., & Serences, J. T. (2012) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/12.8.15 · Cited by 36
Bromocriptine Does Not Alter Speed–Accuracy Tradeoff
Winkel, J., van Maanen, L., Ratcliff, R., van der Schaaf, M. E., van Schouwenburg, M. R., Cools, R., & Forstmann, B. U. (2012) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2012.00126 · Cited by 34
Self-citationThe Spatial Scale of Attention Strongly Modulates Saccade Latencies
Harwood, M., Madelain, L., Krauzlis, R. J., & Wallman, J. (2008) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00589.2007 · Cited by 35
LaCour, M., & Davis, T. H. (2020) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.02.052 · Cited by 37
A note on the sampling properties of the Vincentizing (quantile averaging) procedure
Jiang, Y., Rouder, J. N., & Speckman, P. L. (2004) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2004.01.002 · Cited by 34
Self-citationSport, time pressure, and cognitive performance
Chiu, C. N., Chen, C.-Y., & Muggleton, N. G. (2017) · Progress in brain research · doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.06.007 · Cited by 33
Evans, N. J., Steyvers, M., & Brown, S. D. (2018) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12627 · Cited by 33
A general latent assignment approach for modeling psychological contaminants
Zeigenfuse, M. D., & Lee, M. D. (2010) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2010.04.001 · Cited by 36
Prevalence-based decisions undermine visual search
Schwark, J., MacDonald, J. A., Sandry, J. D., & Dolgov, I. (2013) · Visual Cognition · doi:10.1080/13506285.2013.811135 · Cited by 36
Can Post-Error Dynamics Explain Sequential Reaction Time Patterns?
Goldfarb, S., Wong‐Lin, K., Schwemmer, M. A., Leonard, N. E., & Holmes, P. J. (2012) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00213 · Cited by 34
Dynamic cognitive models of intertemporal choice
Dai, J., Pleskac, T. J., & Pachur, T. (2018) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2018.03.001 · Cited by 33
Valence and ownership: object desirability influences self-prioritization
Golubickis, M., Ho, N. S. P., Falbén, J. K., Schwertel, C. L., Maiuri, A., Dublas, D., Cunningham, W. A., & Macrae, C. N. (2019) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-019-01235-w · Cited by 35
Kang, I., de Boeck, P. A. L., & Ratcliff, R. (2022) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/s11336-021-09819-5 · Cited by 32
Self-citationHumans utilize sensory evidence of others’ intended action to make online decisions
Lokesh, R., Sullivan, S. R., Calalo, J. A., Roth, A. M., Swanik, B., Carter, M. J., & Cashaback, J. G. A. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-12662-y · Cited by 27
Ghaderi-Kangavari, A., Rad, J. A., & Nunez, M. D. (2023) · Computational Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1007/s42113-023-00167-4 · Cited by 39
Röhner, J., & Ewers, T. (2015) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0568-1 · Cited by 32
Feature-sampling and random-walk models of individual-stimulus recognition.
Lamberts, K., Brockdorff, N., & Heit, E. (2003) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.3.351 · Cited by 32
Predicting vulnerability to sleep deprivation using diffusion model parameters
Patanaik, A., Zagorodnov, V., Kwoh, C. K., & Chee, M. W. L. (2014) · Journal of Sleep Research · doi:10.1111/jsr.12166 · Cited by 33
Bonsall, P., & Lythgoe, B. (2009) · Journal of Choice Modelling · doi:10.1016/s1755-5345(13)70011-3 · Cited by 32
Trippas, D., Kellen, D., Singmann, H., Pennycook, G., Koehler, D. J., Fugelsang, J. A., & Dubé, C. (2018) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-018-1460-7 · Cited by 33
Mine or mother’s? Exploring the self-ownership effect across cultures
Golubickis, M., Ho, N. S. P., Falbén, J. K., Mackenzie, K. M., Boschetti, A., Cunningham, W. A., & Macrae, C. N. (2018) · Culture and Brain · doi:10.1007/s40167-018-0068-0 · Cited by 33
Refresh my memory: Episodic memory reinstatements intrude on working memory maintenance
Hoskin, A. N., Bornstein, A. M., Norman, K. A., & Cohen, J. D. (2018) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-018-00674-z · Cited by 35
Evans, N. J., & Servant, M. (2019) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000165 · Cited by 36
What can Neuroscience Contribute to the Debate Over Nudging?
Felsen, G., & Reiner, P. B. (2015) · Review of Philosophy and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s13164-015-0240-9 · Cited by 34
The Influence of Feedback on Task-Switching Performance: A Drift Diffusion Modeling Account
Hoffing, R. C., Karvelis, P., Rupprechter, S., Seriès, P., & Seitz, A. R. (2018) · Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnint.2018.00001 · Cited by 31
Sewell, D. K., Jach, H. K., Boag, R. J., & Heer, C. V. (2019) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-019-01570-4 · Cited by 31
Evidence for different types of errors being associated with different types of post-error changes
Damaso, K. A. M., Williams, P., & Heathcote, A. (2020) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-019-01675-w · Cited by 31
Structural parameter interdependencies in computational models of cognition.
Krefeld-Schwalb, A., Pachur, T., & Scheibehenne, B. (2021) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000285 · Cited by 38
Search for solutions, learning, simulation, and choice processes in suicidal behavior
Dombrovski, A. Y., & Hallquist, M. N. (2021) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science · doi:10.1002/wcs.1561 · Cited by 36
Olfactory perceptual decision-making is biased by motivational state
Shanahan, L. K., Bhutani, S., & Kahnt, T. (2021) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001374 · Cited by 33
Value certainty in drift-diffusion models of preferential choice.
Lee, D. G., & Usher, M. (2021) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000329 · Cited by 31
Analysis of hand kinematics reveals inter-individual differences in intertemporal decision dynamics
Calluso, C., Committeri, G., Pezzulo, G., Lepora, N. F., & Tosoni, A. (2015) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-015-4427-1 · Cited by 32
Basal forebrain motivational salience signal enhances cortical processing and decision speed
Raver, S. M., & Lin, S. (2015) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00277 · Cited by 31
Effect of stimulus intensity on manual and saccadic reaction time
Jaśkowskí, P., & Sobieralska, K. (2004) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03194899 · Cited by 31
Two Mechanisms of Human Contingency Learning
Sternberg, D. A., & McClelland, J. L. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611429577 · Cited by 33
Error-related brain activity and error awareness in an error classification paradigm
Gregorio, F. D., Steinhauser, M., & Maier, M. E. (2016) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.074 · Cited by 38
The mapping between transformed reaction time costs and models of processing in aging and cognition.
Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/pag0000298 · Cited by 35
Common ground for behavioural and neuroimaging research
Brown, S. D. (2011) · Australian Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00046.x · Cited by 31
Titrating decision processes in the mental rotation task.
Provost, A. L., & Heathcote, A. (2015) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0039706 · Cited by 30
Confidence Representation of Perceptual Decision by EEG and Eye Data in a Random Dot Motion Task
Shooshtari, S. V., Esmaily, J., Azizi, Z. R., & Ebrahimpour, R. (2019) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.03.031 · Cited by 31
A divisive model of evidence accumulation explains uneven weighting of evidence over time
Keung, W., Hagen, T. A., & Wilson, R. C. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-15630-0 · Cited by 33
The falsifiability of actual decision-making models.
Heathcote, A., Wagenmakers, E., & Brown, S. D. (2014) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0037771 · Cited by 32
Cortical attractor network dynamics with diluted connectivity
Rolls, E. T., & Webb, T. J. (2011) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2011.08.002 · Cited by 31
Prediction of Decisions from Noise in the Brain before the Evidence is Provided
Rolls, E. T., & Deco, G. (2011) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2011.00033 · Cited by 30
A method, framework, and tutorial for efficiently simulating models of decision-making
Evans, N. J. (2019) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-019-01219-z · Cited by 31
A Neural Network Model of Implicit Memory for Object Recognition
Rouder, J. N., Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2000) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00208 · Cited by 30
Self-citationDiffusion and Random Walk Processes
Smith, P. L., & Ratcliff, R. (2015) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.43037-0 · Cited by 30
Self-citationAttention biases preferential choice by enhancing an option’s value.
Pleskac, T. J., Yu, S., Grunevski, S., & Liu, T. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0001307 · Cited by 24
Speeded saccadic and manual visuo-motor decisions: Distinct processes but same principles
Bompas, A., Hedge, C., & Sumner, P. (2017) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.02.002 · Cited by 34
Osth, A. F., Shabahang, K. D., Mewhort, D. J. K., & Heathcote, A. (2019) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2019.104071 · Cited by 31
Emotion perception in habitual players of action video games.
Pichon, S., Bediou, B., Antico, L., Jack, R. E., Garrod, O., Sims, C. R., Green, C. S., Schyns, P. G., & Bavelier, D. (2020) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/emo0000740 · Cited by 35
Segen, V., Avraamides, M. N., Slattery, T. J., & Wiener, J. M. (2020) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-020-01089-3 · Cited by 29
Magnitude-sensitivity: rethinking decision-making
Pirrone, A., Reina, A., Stafford, T., Marshall, J. A. R., & Gobet, F. R. (2021) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.10.006 · Cited by 29
Evidence accumulation modelling in the wild: understanding safety-critical decisions
Boag, R. J., Strickland, L. J. G., Heathcote, A., Neal, A. F., Palada, H., & Loft, S. D. (2022) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2022.11.009 · Cited by 29
Huk, A. C., & Meister, M. L. R. (2012) · Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnint.2012.00086 · Cited by 33
The Effects of Evidence Bounds on Decision-Making: Theoretical and Empirical Developments
Zhang, J. (2012) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00263 · Cited by 33
Dambacher, M. (2011) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00248 · Cited by 35
Frontal Monitoring and Parietal Evidence: Mechanisms of Error Correction
Cebrian, A. N., Knight, R. T., & Kayser, A. S. (2016) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00962 · Cited by 29
Merkel, A. L., & Lohse, J. (2018) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-018-9566-3 · Cited by 30
Perea, M., Carreiras, M., & Jonathan Grainger, B. (2004) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03196884 · Cited by 29
On the Rational Boundedness of Cognitive Control: Shared Versus Separated RepresentationsPreprint
Musslick, S., Saxe, A., Hoskin, A. N., Sagiv, Y., Reichman, D., Petri, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2020) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/jkhdf · Cited by 34
Process and Content in Decisions From Memory
Zhao, W. J., Richie, R., & Bhatia, S. (2022) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000318 · Cited by 28
A revised diffusion model for conflict tasks
Lee, P.-S., & Sewell, D. K. (2023) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-023-02288-0 · Cited by 30
Çoşkun, F., Sayalı, Z. C., Gürbüz, E., & Balcı, F. (2014) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.944921 · Cited by 28
The Discovery and Interpretation of Evidence Accumulation Stages
van Maanen, L., Portoles, O., & Borst, J. P. (2021) · Computational Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1007/s42113-021-00105-2 · Cited by 28
Examining reaction time variability on the stop-signal task in the ABCD study
Epstein, J. N., Karalunas, S. L., Tamm, L., Dudley, J. A., Lynch, J. D., Altaye, M., Simon, J. O., Maloney, T., & Atluri, G. (2022) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617722000431 · Cited by 31
Reinforcement learning of adaptive control strategies
Held, L. K., Vermeylen, L., Dignath, D., Notebaert, W., Krebs, R. M., & Braem, S. (2024) · Communications Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44271-024-00055-y · Cited by 28
The mechanisms of involuntary attention.
Prinzmetal, W., Ha, R., & Khani, A. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/a0017600 · Cited by 28
Tosh, C. R., Krause, J., & Ruxton, G. D. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0807247106 · Cited by 28
Modeling accuracy as a function of response time with the generalized linear mixed effects model.
Davidson, D., & Martin, A. E. (2013) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.04.016 · Cited by 28
Bridging Media Processing and Selective Exposure
Wang, Z. (2014) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650214534963 · Cited by 28
A generative joint model for spike trains and saccades during perceptual decision-making
Cassey, P., Gaut, G. R. J., Mark Steyvers, B., & Brown, S. D. (2016) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1056-z · Cited by 30
Evidence accumulation detected in BOLD signal using slow perceptual decision making
Krueger, P. M., van Vugt, M. K., Simen, P., Nystrom, L. E., Holmes, P. J., & Cohen, J. D. (2017) · Journal of Neuroscience Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2017.01.012 · Cited by 28
Think fast! The implications of emphasizing urgency in decision-making
Evans, N. J. (2021) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104704 · Cited by 31
The Decisive Role of Non-Decision Time for Interpreting the Parameters of Decision Making ModelsPreprint
Weindel, G., Gajdos, T., Burle, B., & Alario, F. ‐. (2021) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/gewb3 · Cited by 29
Abstract deliberation by visuomotor neurons in prefrontal cortex
Charlton, J. A., & Goris, R. L. T. (2024) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-024-01635-1 · Cited by 28
Mindset effects on the regulation of thinking time in problem-solving
Ackerman, R., & Levontin, L. (2023) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2023.2259550 · Cited by 28
Idiosyncratic choice bias naturally emerges from intrinsic stochasticity in neuronal dynamics
Lebovich, L., Darshan, R., Lavi, Y., Hansel, D., & Loewenstein, Y. (2019) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0682-7 · Cited by 29
Deep Active Inference and Scene Construction
Heins, R. C., Mirza, M. B., Parr, T., Friston, K. J., Kagan, I., & Pooresmaeili, A. (2020) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2020.509354 · Cited by 28
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
