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 601–700 of 1,000
Yangüez, M., Bediou, B., Chanal, J. P., & Bavelier, D. (2023) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000434 · Cited by 31
The best of times and the worst of times are interchangeable.
Hawkins, G. E., Marley, A. A. J., Heathcote, A., Flynn, T. N., Louviere, J. J., & Brown, S. D. (2014) · Decision · doi:10.1037/dec0000012 · Cited by 27
Piéron’s Law is not just an artifact of the response mechanism
Donkin, C., & van Maanen, L. (2014) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2014.09.006 · Cited by 28
A Bayesian Approach to Diffusion Models of Decision-Making and Response Time
Lee, M. D., Fuss, I., & Navarro, D. (2007) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/7503.003.0106 · Cited by 27
Tosun, T., Berkay, D., Sack, A. T., Çakmak, Y. Ö., & Balcı, F. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01134 · Cited by 28
Thermodynamic integration via differential evolution: A method for estimating marginal likelihoods
Evans, N. J., & Annis, J. S. (2019) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-018-1172-y · Cited by 27
The Dynamics of Neural Populations Capture the Laws of the Mind
Schöner, G. (2019) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12453 · Cited by 27
Rational inattention when decisions take time
Hebert, B. M., & Woodford, M. (2023) · Journal of Economic Theory · doi:10.1016/j.jet.2023.105612 · Cited by 27
Conducting an Eyewitness Lineup: How the Research Got It Wrong
Gronlund, S. D., Mickes, L., Wixted, J. T., & Clark, S. E. (2015) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/bs.plm.2015.03.003 · Cited by 30
A crossed random effects diffusion model for speeded semantic categorization decisions
Vandekerckhove, J., Verheyen, S., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2009) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.10.009 · Cited by 29
Cognitive Control of Working Memory: A Model-Based Approach
Boag, R. J., Stevenson, N., van Dooren, R., Trutti, A. C., Sjoerds, Z., & Forstmann, B. U. (2021) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci11060721 · Cited by 30
Joint Modelling of Latent Cognitive Mechanisms Shared Across Decision-Making Domains
Stevenson, N., Innes, R. J., Boag, R. J., Miletić, S., Isherwood, S. J., Trutti, A. C., Heathcote, A., & Forstmann, B. U. (2024) · Computational Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1007/s42113-023-00192-3 · Cited by 26
Deciding Not to Decide: Computational and Neural Evidence for Hidden Behavior in Sequential Choice
Gluth, S., Rieskamp, J., & Büchel, C. (2013) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003309 · Cited by 26
Brief Report: Stereotypes in Autism Revisited
Kirchner, J. C., Schmitz, F., & Dziobek, I. (2012) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1460-9 · Cited by 26
Blunden, A. G., Wang, T., Griffiths, D. W., & Little, D. R. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01531 · Cited by 26
Brocas, I. (2012) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2012.06.004 · Cited by 26
Model-Based Analysis of Context-Specific Cognitive Control
King, J. A., Donkin, C., Korb, F. M., & Egner, T. (2012) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00358 · Cited by 26
Using Decision Models to Enhance Investigations of Individual Differences in Cognitive Neuroscience
White, C. N., Curl, R. A., & Sloane, J. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00081 · Cited by 26
Mixing memory and desire: How memory reactivation supports deliberative decision‐making
Wang, S., Feng, S. F., & Bornstein, A. M. (2021) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science · doi:10.1002/wcs.1581 · Cited by 28
A martingale analysis of first passage times of time-dependent Wiener diffusion models
Srivastava, V., Feng, S. F., Cohen, J. D., Leonard, N. E., & Shenhav, A. (2016) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2016.10.001 · Cited by 26
Reply to 'Putting noise into neurophysiological models of simple decision making'
Carpenter, R. H. S., & Reddi, B. A. J. (2001) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/85960 · Cited by 26
Generalising the drift rate distribution for linear ballistic accumulators
Terry, A., Marley, A. A. J., Barnwal, A., Wagenmakers, E., Heathcote, A., & Brown, S. D. (2015) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2015.09.002 · Cited by 25
Perceptual bias is reduced with longer reaction times during visual discrimination
Dekel, R., & Sagi, D. (2020) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-020-0786-7 · Cited by 26
Perceptual Decision-Making in Children: Age-Related Differences and EEG Correlates
Manning, C., Wagenmakers, E., Norcia, A. M., Scerif, G., & Boehm, U. (2020) · Computational Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1007/s42113-020-00087-7 · Cited by 30
Population temporal structure supplements the rate code during sensorimotor transformations
Jagadisan, U. K., & Gandhi, N. J. (2022) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2022.01.015 · Cited by 25
A model-based approach to disentangling facilitation and interference effects in conflict tasks.
Evans, N. J., & Servant, M. (2022) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000357 · Cited by 26
Psychedelics and schizophrenia: Distinct alterations to Bayesian inference
Rajpal, H., Mediano, P. A. M., Rosas, F. E., Timmermann, C., Brugger, S. P., Muthukumaraswamy, S. D., Seth, A. K., Bor, D., Carhart-Harris, R. L., & Jensen, H. J. (2022) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119624 · Cited by 25
Zhu, J.-Q., Sundh, J., Spicer, J., Chater, N., & Sanborn, A. N. (2023) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000427 · Cited by 31
Neural superstatistics for Bayesian estimation of dynamic cognitive models
Schumacher, L., Bürkner, P., Voß, A., Köthe, U., & Radev, S. T. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-40278-3 · Cited by 27
Modeling the adaptation of search termination in human decision making.
Lee, M. D., Newell, B. R., & Vandekerckhove, J. (2014) · Decision · doi:10.1037/dec0000019 · Cited by 25
Modeling the Effect of Selection History on Pop-Out Visual Search
Tseng, Y., Glaser, J. I., Caddigan, E., & Lleras, A. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089996 · Cited by 27
Flanker and negative flanker effects in letter identification
Rouder, J. N., & King, J. W. (2003) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03194800 · Cited by 25
Self-citationNeural Mechanisms for Perceptual Decision Making
Gold, J. I., & Heekeren, H. R. (2013) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-416008-8.00019-x · Cited by 29
Disrupted latent decision processes in medication-free pediatric OCD patients
Erhan, C., Bulut, G. Ç., Gökçe, S., Ozbas, D., Türkakın, E., Dursun, O. B., Yazgan, Y., & Balcı, F. (2016) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2016.09.011 · Cited by 26
Investigating task inhibition in children versus adults: A diffusion model analysis
Schuch, S., & Konrad, K. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2016.11.012 · Cited by 25
Response time modeling reveals multiple contextual cuing mechanisms
Sewell, D. K., Colagiuri, B., & Livesey, E. J. (2017) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1364-y · Cited by 25
Yang, C.-T., Altieri, N. A., & Little, D. R. (2017) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2017.09.003 · Cited by 27
Double responding: A new constraint for models of speeded decision making
Evans, N. J., Dutilh, G., Wagenmakers, E., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2020) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2020.101292 · Cited by 28
Internal Models, Vestibular Cognition, and Mental Imagery: Conceptual Considerations
Mast, F. W., & Ellis, A. W. (2015) · Multisensory Research · doi:10.1163/22134808-00002503 · Cited by 28
Interval Timing by Long-Range Temporal Integration
Simen, P., Balcı, F., deSouza, L., Cohen, J. D., & Holmes, P. J. (2011) · Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnint.2011.00028 · Cited by 25
Modelling age-related changes in information processing
Spieler, D. H. (2001) · The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/09541440042000287 · Cited by 25
Math Garden: A new educational and scientific instrument
Straatemeier, M. (2014) · UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · Cited by 25
Evaluating the two-component inspection model in a simplified luggage search task
Wales, A., Anderson, C., Jones, K., Schwaninger, A., & Horne, J. (2009) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.41.3.937 · Cited by 25
Confidence through consensus: a neural mechanism for uncertainty monitoring
Paz, L., Insabato, A., Zylberberg, A., Deco, G., & Sigman, M. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep21830 · Cited by 26
Analyzing airport security checkpoint performance using cognitive agent models
Knol, A., Sharpanskykh, A., & Janssen, S. (2018) · Journal of Air Transport Management · doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.11.003 · Cited by 24
Tracking continuities in the flanker task: From continuous flow to movement trajectories
Erb, C. D., Smith, K., & Moher, J. (2020) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-020-02154-4 · Cited by 26
Attentional shifts and preference reversals: An eye-tracking study
Alós‐Ferrer, C., Jaudas, A., & Ritschel, A. (2021) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500008305 · Cited by 24
Same, Same but Different? A Multi-Method Review of the Processes Underlying Executive Control
Toba, M. N., Malkinson, T. S., Howells, H., Mackie, M., & Spagna, A. (2023) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-023-09577-4 · Cited by 26
Dendauw, E., Evans, N. J., Logan, G. D., Haffen, É., Bennabi, D., Gajdos, T., & Servant, M. (2024) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000464 · Cited by 31
Starns, J. J. (2014) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-014-0432-z · Cited by 25
Maia, P. D., & Kutz, J. N. (2017) · Journal of Computational Neuroscience · doi:10.1007/s10827-017-0643-y · Cited by 24
Unraveling information processes of decision-making with eye-tracking data
Ting, C.-C., & Gluth, S. (2024) · Frontiers in Behavioral Economics · doi:10.3389/frbhe.2024.1384713 · Cited by 29
Looking into your eyes: observed pupil size influences approach-avoidance responses
Brambilla, M., Biella, M., & Kret, M. E. (2018) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2018.1472554 · Cited by 29
Time-evolving psychological processes over repeated decisions.
Gunawan, D., Hawkins, G. E., Kohn, R., Tran, M., & Brown, S. D. (2022) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000351 · Cited by 25
Improving parameter recovery for conflict drift-diffusion models
Hübner, R., & Pelzer, T. (2020) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-020-01366-8 · Cited by 23
Jumping to Conclusion? A Lévy Flight Model of Decision Making
Wieschen, E. M., Voß, A., & Radev, S. T. (2020) · The Quantitative Methods for Psychology · doi:10.20982/tqmp.16.2.p120 · Cited by 27
de Mooij, S. M. M., Dumontheil, I., Kirkham, N. Z., Raijmakers, M. E. J., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2021) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.13174 · Cited by 23
Process-oriented intelligence research: A review from the cognitive perspective
Frischkorn, G. T., Wilhelm, O., & Oberauer, K. (2022) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2022.101681 · Cited by 25
Temporal integration of sensory evidence for saccade target selection
Ludwig, C. J. H. (2009) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2009.08.012 · Cited by 23
Using speed measures to predict performance in x-ray luggage screening tasks
Wales, A., Halbherr, T., & Schwaninger, A. (2009) · IEEE International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (ICCST) · doi:10.1109/ccst.2009.5335536 · Cited by 23
Obsessive compulsive features predict cautious decision strategies
Erhan, C., & Balcı, F. (2015) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1130070 · Cited by 24
A Bayesian Reformulation of the Extended Drift-Diffusion Model in Perceptual Decision Making
Fard, P. R., Park, H., Warkentin, A., Kiebel, S. J., & Bitzer, S. (2017) · Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fncom.2017.00029 · Cited by 26
Grootswagers, T., Ritchie, J. B., Wardle, S. G., Heathcote, A., & Carlson, T. A. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01177 · Cited by 23
The Role of Independence and Stationarity in Probabilistic Models of Binary Choice
Regenwetter, M., & Davis‐Stober, C. P. (2017) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.2037 · Cited by 23
Pavan, A., Hobaek, M., Blurton, S. P., Contillo, A., Ghin, F., & Greenlee, M. W. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-42593-0 · Cited by 25
Learning and forgetting using reinforced Bayesian change detection
Moens, V., & Zénon, A. (2019) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006713 · Cited by 25
Integration to boundary in decisions between numerical sequences
Glickman, M., & Usher, M. (2019) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104022 · Cited by 23
Analysis of group differences in processing speed: Where are the models of processing?
Ratcliff, R., Spieler, D. H., & McKoon, G. (2004) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196631 · Cited by 25
Self-citationEvidence accumulates for individual attributes during value-based decisions.
Lee, D. G., & Hare, T. A. (2022) · Decision · doi:10.1037/dec0000190 · Cited by 22
On mimicry among sequential sampling models
Khodadadi, A., & Townsend, J. T. (2015) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2015.08.007 · Cited by 22
Bunji, K., & Okada, K. (2020) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-019-01302-5 · Cited by 22
Schräder, J., Habel, U., Jo, H., Walter, F., & Wagels, L. (2023) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2023.103493 · Cited by 22
Noise in Cognition: Bug or Feature?
Sanborn, A. N., Zhu, J.-Q., Spicer, J., León-Villagrá, P., Castillo, L., Falbén, J. K., Li, Y.-X., Tee, A., & Chater, N. (2025) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916241258951 · Cited by 23
Control adjustment costs limit goal flexibility: Empirical evidence and a computational account.
Grahek, I., Leng, X., Musslick, S., & Shenhav, A. (2025) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000576 · Cited by 21
Practice Increases the Efficiency of Evidence Accumulation in Perceptual Choice.
Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.2.289 · Cited by 22
Vullings, C., & Madelain, L. (2017) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00634.2017 · Cited by 23
Face processing in autism spectrum disorder re-evaluated through diffusion models.
Powell, G., Jones, C. R. G., Hedge, C., Charman, T., Happe, F. G. E., Simonoff, E. A., & Sumner, P. (2019) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/neu0000524 · Cited by 24
Dynamic combination of sensory and reward information under time pressure
Farashahi, S. G., Ting, C.-C., Kao, C.-H., Wu, S., & Soltani, A. (2018) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006070 · Cited by 22
An Algorithmic Model of Decision Making in the Human Brain
Saberi-Moghadam, S., Khodadad, F. S., & Khazaeinezhad, V. (2019) · Basic and Clinical Neuroscience Journal · doi:10.32598/bcn.9.10.395 · Cited by 25
Sensitivity of reaction time to the magnitude of rewards reveals the cost-structure of time
Steverson, K., Chung, H.-K., Zimmermann, J., Louie, K., & Glimcher, P. W. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-56392-0 · Cited by 24
From the Reward Circuit to the Valuation System: How the Brain Motivates Behavior
Pessiglione, M., & Lebreton, M. P. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-1236-0_11 · Cited by 23
Nosofsky, R. M., & Stanton, R. D. (2006) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.314 · Cited by 22
Rouder, J. N. (2000) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.26.1.359 · Cited by 22
Self-citationIdentifying relationships between cognitive processes across tasks, contexts, and time
Wall, L., Gunawan, D., Brown, S. D., Tran, M., Kohn, R., & Hawkins, G. E. (2020) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-020-01405-4 · Cited by 21
Kohl, C., Spieser, L., Förster, B., Bestmann, S., & Yarrow, K. (2020) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2020.101321 · Cited by 21
Enachescu, V., Schrater, P., Schaal, S., & Christopoulos, V. (2021) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009429 · Cited by 21
Thunderstruck: The ACDC model of flexible sequences and rhythms in recurrent neural circuits
Calderon, C. B., Verguts, T., & Frank, M. J. (2022) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009854 · Cited by 21
Pitliya, R. J., Nelson, B. D., Hajcak, G., & Jin, J. (2022) · Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology · doi:10.1007/s10802-022-00936-y · Cited by 24
Framing Subjective Emotion Reports as Dynamic Affective Decisions
Teoh, Y. Y., Cunningham, W. A., & Hutcherson, C. A. C. (2023) · Affective Science · doi:10.1007/s42761-023-00197-y · Cited by 23
Differences in learning across the lifespan emerge via resource-rational computations.
Bruckner, R., Nassar, M. R., Li, S., & Eppinger, B. (2025) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000526 · Cited by 24
Ranger, J., & Kuhn, J. (2013) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1111/bmsp.12025 · Cited by 22
Interindividual differences in preferred directions of perceptual and motor decisions
Schütz, A. C. (2014) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/14.12.16 · Cited by 21
The role of the collicular pathway in the salience-based progression of visual attention
Mizzi, R., & Michael, G. A. (2014) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2014.05.043 · Cited by 21
Palmeri, T. J., & Cottrell, G. W. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195309607.003.0008 · Cited by 21
A decision-making model based on a spiking neural circuit and synaptic plasticity
Wei, H., Bu, Y., & Dai, D. (2017) · Cognitive Neurodynamics · doi:10.1007/s11571-017-9436-2 · Cited by 21
Removal of inhibition uncovers latent movement potential during preparation
Jagadisan, U. K., & Gandhi, N. J. (2017) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.29648 · Cited by 21
On the time it takes to judge grammaticality
Mirault, J., & Jonathan Grainger, B. (2020) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/1747021820913296 · Cited by 21
Neural integrators for decision making: a favorable tradeoff between robustness and sensitivity
Cain, N., Barreiro, A. K., Shadlen, M. N., & Shea‐Brown, E. (2013) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00976.2012 · Cited by 22
A Two-Stage Process Model of Sensory Discrimination: An Alternative to Drift-Diffusion
Sun, P., & Landy, M. S. (2016) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1367-16.2016 · Cited by 24
A Poisson random walk model of response times.
Blurton, S. P., Kyllingsbæk, S., Nielsen, C. S., & Bundesen, C. (2020) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000179 · Cited by 21
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