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 801–900 of 1,000
Confidence in evaluations and value-based decisions reflects variation in experienced values.
Quandt, J., Figner, B., Holland, R. W., & Veling, H. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0001102 · Cited by 14
Pedestrians’ road-crossing decisions: Comparing different drift-diffusion models
Theisen, M., Schießl, C., Einhäuser, W., & Markkula, G. M. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103200 · Cited by 15
Vermeent, S., Young, E. S., DeJoseph, M. L., Schubert, A., & Frankenhuis, W. E. (2024) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.13478 · Cited by 17
An Expert Guide to Planning Experimental Tasks For Evidence-Accumulation Modeling
Boag, R. J., Innes, R. J., Stevenson, N., Bahg, G., Busemeyer, J. R., Cox, G. E., Donkin, C., Frank, M. J., Hawkins, G. E., Heathcote, A., et al. (2025) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/25152459251336127 · Cited by 18
Mohammadi, Z., Ashwood, Z. C., & Pillow, J. W. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-66738-0 · Cited by 19
Estimating the growth of internal evidence guiding perceptual decisions
Ludwig, C. J. H., & Davies, J. R. (2011) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.05.002 · Cited by 14
Gopal, A., & Murthy, A. (2016) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00910.2015 · Cited by 14
How Do Children Deal With Conflict? A Developmental Study of Sequential Conflict Modulation
Smulders, S. F. A., Soetens, E. L. L., & van der Molen, M. W. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00766 · Cited by 14
The diffusion model visualizer: an interactive tool to understand the diffusion model parameters
Alexandrowicz, R. W. (2018) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-018-1112-6 · Cited by 14
Modeling the Effect of Speed Emphasis in Probabilistic Category Learning
Sewell, D. K., & Stallman, A. (2019) · Computational Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1007/s42113-019-00067-6 · Cited by 14
Heidari-Gorji, H., Ebrahimpour, R., & Zabbah, S. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-85198-2 · Cited by 14
A cognitive model of response omissions in distraction paradigms
Damaso, K. A. M., Castro, S. C., Todd, J., Strayer, D. L., Provost, A. L., Matzke, D., & Heathcote, A. (2021) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-021-01265-z · Cited by 18
Contingent capture and inhibition of return: a comparison of mechanisms
Prinzmetal, W., Taylor, J. A., Myers, L. B., & Nguyen-Espino, J. (2011) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2805-x · Cited by 15
Vlassova, A., & Pearson, J. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797612474321 · Cited by 15
Effects of reward on oculomotor control
McCoy, B., & Theeuwes, J. (2016) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00498.2016 · Cited by 15
Residual Information of Previous Decision Affects Evidence Accumulation in Current Decision
Olianezhad, F., Zabbah, S., Tohidi-Moghaddam, M., & Ebrahimpour, R. (2019) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00009 · Cited by 14
Predictably confirmatory: The influence of stereotypes during decisional processing
Falbén, J. K., Tsamadi, D., Golubickis, M., Olivier, J. L., Persson, L. M., Cunningham, W. A., & Macrae, C. N. (2019) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/1747021819844219 · Cited by 14
ChaRTr: An R toolbox for modeling choices and response times in decision-making tasks
Chandrasekaran, C., & Hawkins, G. E. (2019) · Journal of Neuroscience Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2019.108432 · Cited by 15
Probability assessment with response times and confidence in perception and knowledge
Petrusic, W. M., & Baranski, J. V. (2008) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.10.008 · Cited by 16
Location cuing and response time distributions in visual attention
Gottlob, L. R. (2004) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03194999 · Cited by 14
Gozli, D. G., Huffman, G., & Pratt, J. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000238 · Cited by 13
Age-Related Differences in Decision-Making: Evidence Accumulation is More Gradual in Older Age
Wieschen, E. M., Makani, A., Radev, S. T., Voß, A., & Spaniol, J. (2023) · Experimental Aging Research · doi:10.1080/0361073x.2023.2241333 · Cited by 13
A neural computation model for decision-making times
Bakhtin, Y. Y., & Correll, J. (2012) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2012.05.005 · Cited by 13
Modeling confidence and response time in associative recognition
Voskuilen, C., & Ratcliff, R. (2015) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.09.006 · Cited by 13
Self-citationHow to weigh lives. A computational model of moral judgment in multiple-outcome structures
Engelmann, N., & Waldmann, M. R. (2021) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104910 · Cited by 13
Response time modelling reveals evidence for multiple, distinct sources of moral decision caution
Andrejević, M., White, J. P., Feuerriegel, D., Laham, S. M., & Bode, S. (2022) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105026 · Cited by 16
Murrow, M., & Holmes, W. R. (2023) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-023-02162-w · Cited by 14
Risky decisions are influenced by individual attributes as a function of risk preference
Lee, D. G., D’Alessandro, M., Iodice, P., Calluso, C., Rustichini, A., & Pezzulo, G. (2023) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2023.101614 · Cited by 13
Soutschek, A., Schwarzkopf, W., Finke, K., Hennig‐Fast, K., Müller, H. J., Riedel, M. J., Möller, H., Sorg, C., & Schubert, T. (2013) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.02.013 · Cited by 13
Deciding on race: A diffusion model analysis of race-categorisation
Benton, C. P., & Skinner, A. (2015) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.02.011 · Cited by 13
Temporal Integration of Auditory Information Is Invariant to Temporal Grouping Cues
Liu, A., Tsunada, J., Gold, J. I., & Cohen, Y. E. (2015) · eNeuro · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0077-14.2015 · Cited by 13
Chiew, K. S., & Braver, T. S. (2011) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00325 · Cited by 13
An evidence accumulation model of acoustic cue weighting in vowel perception
Tillman, G., Benders, T., Brown, S. D., & van Ravenzwaaij, D. (2016) · Journal of Phonetics · doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2016.12.001 · Cited by 13
Rolison, J. J. (2019) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/dev0000765 · Cited by 13
Stereotype-based priming without stereotype activation: A tale of two priming tasks
Tsamadi, D., Falbén, J. K., Persson, L. M., Golubickis, M., Caughey, S., Sahin, B., & Macrae, C. N. (2020) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/1747021820925396 · Cited by 14
A likelihood ratio test for mixture effects
Miller, J. O. (2006) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03192754 · Cited by 13
Delays without Mistakes: Response Time and Error Distributions in Dual-Task
Kamienkowski, J. E., & Sigman, M. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003196 · Cited by 13
Perceptual ambiguity of bistable visual stimuli causes no or little increase in perceptual latency
Takei, S. (2010) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/10.4.23 · Cited by 13
Bayesian Semiparametric Longitudinal Drift-Diffusion Mixed Models for Tone Learning in Adults
Paulon, G., Llanos, F., Chandrasekaran, B., & Sarkar, A. (2020) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2020.1801448 · Cited by 14
Bobadilla-Suarez, S., Guest, O., & Love, B. C. (2020) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-020-01315-3 · Cited by 15
Effects of blocked versus interleaved training on relative value learning
Hayes, W. M., & Wedell, D. H. (2023) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-023-02290-6 · Cited by 12
Visuo-vestibular heading perception: a model system to study multi-sensory decision making
Zeng, Z., Zhang, C., & Gu, Y. (2023) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2022.0334 · Cited by 13
Explicit moments of decision times for single- and double-threshold drift-diffusion processes
Srivastava, V., Holmes, P. J., & Simen, P. (2016) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2016.03.005 · Cited by 12
Information foraging for perceptual decisions.
Ludwig, C. J. H., & Evens, D. R. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000299 · Cited by 12
Robust parallel decision-making in neural circuits with nonlinear inhibition
Kriener, B., Chaudhuri, R., & Fiete, I. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1917551117 · Cited by 13
Miletić, S., Keuken, M. C., Mulder, M., Trampel, R., de Hollander, G., & Forstmann, B. U. (2022) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2022.06.014 · Cited by 13
Ghaderi-Kangavari, A., Parand, K., Ebrahimpour, R., Nunez, M. D., & Rad, J. A. (2023) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2023.2187714 · Cited by 13
Performance on Perceptual Word Identification is Mediated by Discrete States
Swagman, A. R., Province, J. M., & Rouder, J. N. (2014) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0670-x · Cited by 12
Self-citationThe first-passage time distribution for the diffusion model with variable drift
Blurton, S. P., Kesselmeier, M., & Gondan, M. (2016) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2016.11.003 · Cited by 13
The Effect of Teaching Experience on Time and Accuracy of Assessing Young Singers’ Pitch Accuracy
Hedden, D. G., & Johnson, C. (2008) · Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education · doi:10.2307/40319339 · Cited by 12
Neural Activations Associated with Decision‐time and Choice in a Milk Labeling Experiment
Crespi, J. M., Lusk, J. L., Cherry, J. B. C., Martin, L. E., McFadden, B. R., & Bruce, A. S. (2015) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1093/ajae/aav049 · Cited by 13
Testing Theories of Post-Error Slowing
Dutilh, G., Vandekerckhove, J., Forstmann, B. U., Keuleers, E., Brysbaert, M., & Wagenmakers, E. (2011) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e520602012-241 · Cited by 12
Rasanan, A. H. H., Evans, N. J., Rieskamp, J., & Rad, J. A. (2023) · Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements · doi:10.1016/j.enganabound.2023.03.005 · Cited by 12
Vázquez, D., Maulhardt, S., Stalnaker, T. A., Solway, A., Charpentier, C. J., & Roesch, M. R. (2024) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1850-23.2024 · Cited by 11
Vuckovic, A., Kwantes, P. J., Humphreys, M. S., & Neal, A. F. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037/xap000007 · Cited by 11
Sequence-dependent sensitivity explains the accuracy of decisions when cues are separated with a gap
Tohidi-Moghaddam, M., Zabbah, S., Olianezhad, F., & Ebrahimpour, R. (2019) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-019-01810-8 · Cited by 13
Under Threat, Weaker Evidence Is Required to Reach Undesirable Conclusions
Globig, L. K., Witte, K., Feng, G., & Sharot, T. (2021) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3194-20.2021 · Cited by 11
What can evidence accumulation modelling tell us about human social cognition?
Parker, S., & Ramsey, R. (2023) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218231176950 · Cited by 12
Computational mechanisms underlying latent value updating of unchosen actions
Ben-Artzi, I., Kessler, Y., Nicenboim, B., & Shahar, N. (2023) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adi2704 · Cited by 15
Reward Reinforcement Creates Enduring Facilitation of Goal-directed Behavior
Ballard, I. C., Waskom, M., Nix, K. C., & D’Esposito, M. (2024) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_02150 · Cited by 12
Yang, H., Meijer, H. G. E., Doll, R. J., Buitenweg, J. R., & van Gils, S. A. (2015) · Biological Cybernetics · doi:10.1007/s00422-015-0656-4 · Cited by 11
How active perception and attractor dynamics shape perceptual categorization: A computational model
Volpi, N. C., Quinton, J., & Pezzulo, G. (2014) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2014.06.008 · Cited by 12
Prior expectations modulate unconscious evidence accumulation
Barbosa, L. S., Vlassova, A., & Kouider, S. (2017) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2017.04.001 · Cited by 11
Cueing Effects in the Attentional Network Test: a Spotlight Diffusion Model Analysis
White, C. N., & Curl, R. A. (2018) · Computational Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1007/s42113-018-0004-6 · Cited by 11
Baranski, J. V., & Petrusic, W. M. (2003) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.3.658 · Cited by 11
Goldfarb, S., Leonard, N. E., Simen, P., Caicedo-NÃoñez, C. H., & Holmes, P. J. (2014) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2014.00148 · Cited by 11
Hierarchical Bayesian Analyses for Modeling BOLD Time Series Data
Molloy, M. F., Bahg, G., Li, X., Steyvers, M., Lu, Z., & Turner, B. M. (2018) · Computational Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1007/s42113-018-0013-5 · Cited by 11
A dynamic model of deciding not to choose.
Reynolds, A., Garton, R. F., Kvam, P. D., Sauer, J. D., Osth, A. F., & Heathcote, A. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000770 · Cited by 11
Developing memory-based models of ACT-R within a statistical framework
Fisher, C. R., Houpt, J. W., & Glenn Gunzelmann, A. (2020) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2020.102416 · Cited by 11
Statistical models for responses and response times
Entink, R. K. (2008) · doi:10.3990/1.9789036527552 · Cited by 11
EMC2: An R Package for cognitive models of choicePreprint
Stevenson, N., Donzallaz, M. C., Innes, R. J., Forstmann, B. U., Matzke, D., & Heathcote, A. (2024) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/2e4dq · Cited by 11
Improving models of pedestrian crossing behavior using neural signatures of decision-making
Ma, S., Yan, X., Billington, J., Leonetti, M., Merat, N., & Markkula, G. M. (2025) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2025.01.047 · Cited by 13
Grzyb, K. R., & Hübner, R. (2011) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.10.006 · Cited by 10
Optimality and Limitations of Audio-Visual Integration for Cognitive Systems
Boyce, W. P., Lindsay, A., Zgonnikov, A., Rañó, I., & Wong‐Lin, K. (2020) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2020.00094 · Cited by 11
Luber, B. M., Jangraw, D. C., Appelbaum, G., Harrison, A., Hilbig, S. A., Beynel, L., Jones, T., Sajda, P., & Lisanby, S. H. (2020) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2020.00004 · Cited by 10
Yoon, H.-D., Shin, M., & Jeon, H. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-98351-8 · Cited by 10
Morito, Y., & Murata, T. (2022) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1062-21.2022 · Cited by 11
Unraveling the cognitive correlates of heart rate variability with the drift diffusion model
Spangler, D. P., Yang, X., Weidler, B. J., Thayer, J. F., & McGinley, J. J. (2022) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.08.003 · Cited by 12
Inclusion Bayes factors for mixed hierarchical diffusion decision models.
Boehm, U., Evans, N. J., Gronau, Q. F., Matzke, D., Wagenmakers, E., & Heathcote, A. (2023) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/met0000582 · Cited by 11
Psychological value theory: A computational cognitive model of charitable giving
Cohen, D. J., Campbell, M. K., & Quinlan, P. T. (2023) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2023.101593 · Cited by 10
A hybrid approach to dynamic cognitive psychometrics
Tanis, C. C., Heathcote, A., Zrubka, M., & Matzke, D. (2024) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-023-02295-y · Cited by 10
Using group level factor models to resolve high dimensionality in model-based sampling.
Stevenson, N., Innes, R. J., Gronau, Q. F., Miletić, S., Heathcote, A., Forstmann, B. U., & Brown, S. D. (2024) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/met0000618 · Cited by 10
Manual choice reaction times in the rate-domain
Harris, C. M., Waddington, J., Biscione, V., & Manzi, S. (2014) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00418 · Cited by 15
Reike, D., & Schwarz, W. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000287 · Cited by 10
Schmitz, F., Rotter, D., & Wilhelm, O. (2018) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence6040047 · Cited by 10
Discriminative control of saccade latencies
Vullings, C., & Madelain, L. (2019) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/19.3.16 · Cited by 10
Parallel and serial task processing in the PRP paradigm: a drift–diffusion model approach
Mattes, A., Tavera, F. L., Ophey, A., Roheger, M., Gaschler, R., & Haider, H. (2020) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-020-01337-w · Cited by 11
A NEUROIMAGING APPROACH TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ATTENTION AND SPEED-ACCURACY TRADEOFF
van Veen, V. (2006) · D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) · Cited by 10
A task-irrelevant stimulus attribute affects perception and short-term memory
Jie, H. J., Kahana, M. J., & Sekuler, R. (2009) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/mc.37.8.1088 · Cited by 10
Donkin, C., Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2009) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.41.1.154 · Cited by 10
Luo, A. (2009) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/neuro.09.005.2009 · Cited by 10
Bio-inspired decision-making and control: From honeybees and neurons to network design
Srivastava, V., & Leonard, N. E. (2017) · Proceedings of the ... American Control Conference/Proceedings of the American Control Conference · doi:10.23919/acc.2017.7963250 · Cited by 12
Lim, K., Wang, W., & Merfeld, D. M. (2017) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00318.2017 · Cited by 10
Neural correlates of effort-based behavioral inconsistency
Bernácer, J., Martínez-Valbuena, I., Martı́nez, M., Pujol, N., Luís, E. O., Ramírez-Castillo, D., & Pastor, M. A. (2018) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2018.12.005 · Cited by 10
Preference accumulation as a process model of desirability ratings
Bhatia, S., & Pleskac, T. J. (2019) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2018.12.003 · Cited by 10
Cue-Driven Changes in Detection Strategies Reflect Trade-Offs in Strategic Efficiency
Yang, C.-T., Wang, C., Chang, T.-Y., Yu, J., & Little, D. R. (2019) · Computational Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1007/s42113-019-00027-0 · Cited by 10
Spilcke-Liss, J., Zhu, J., Gluth, S., Spezio, M., & Gläscher, J. P. (2019) · Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnint.2019.00053 · Cited by 10
Frontal cortex differentiates between free and imposed target selection in multiple-target search
Ort, E., Fahrenfort, J. J., Reeder, R., Pollmann, S., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2019) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116133 · Cited by 11
Wolkersdorfer, M. P., Panis, S., & Schmidt, T. (2020) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-020-02010-5 · Cited by 10
Double Responding: A New Constraint for Models of Speeded Decision MakingPreprint
Evans, N. J., Dutilh, G., Wagenmakers, E., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/nf2q9 · Cited by 10
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
