1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Psychology
  4. Volume 67, 2016
  5. Article

Annual Review of Psychology

Volume 67, 2016

Sequential Sampling Models in Cognitive Neuroscience: Advantages, Applications, and Extensions

Abstract

Sequential sampling models assume that people make speeded decisions by gradually accumulating noisy information until a threshold of evidence is reached. In cognitive science, one such model—the diffusion decision model—is now regularly used to decompose task performance into underlying processes such as the quality of information processing, response caution, and a priori bias. In the cognitive neurosciences, the diffusion decision model has recently been adopted as a quantitative tool to study the neural basis of decision making under time pressure. We present a selective overview of several recent applications and extensions of the diffusion decision model in the cognitive neurosciences.

Keyword(s): decision making, diffusion decision model, drift rate, information accumulation, response time, speed-accuracy trade-off
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033645
2016-01-04
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/67/1/annurev-psych-122414-033645.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033645&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Audley RJ, Pike AR. 1965. Some alternative stochastic models of choice. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 18:207–25 [Google Scholar]
  2. Basso MA, Wurtz RH. 1998. Modulation of neuronal activity in superior colliculus by changes in target probability. J. Neurosci. 18:7519–34 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bode S, Sewell DK, Lilburn S, Forte JD, Smith PL, Stahl J. 2012. Predicting perceptual decision biases from early brain activity. J. Neurosci. 32:12488–98 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boehm U, Van Maanen L, Forstmann B, Van Rijn H. 2014. Trial-by-trial fluctuations in CNV amplitude reflect anticipatory adjustment of response caution. NeuroImage 96:95–105 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bogacz R, Brown E, Moehlis J, Holmes P, Cohen JD. 2006. The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced choice tasks. Psychol. Rev. 113:700–65 [Google Scholar]
  6. Boucher L, Palmeri TJ, Logan GD. 2007. Inhibitory control in mind and brain: an interactive race model of countermanding saccades. Psychol. Rev. 114:376–97 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bowman NE, Kording KP, Gottfried JA. 2012. Temporal integration of olfactory perceptual evidence in human orbitofrontal cortex. Neuron 75:916–27 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown SD, Heathcote A. 2008. The simplest complete model of choice response time: linear ballistic accumulation. Cogn. Psychol. 57:153–78Proposed a competing nonstochastic model for decision making. [Google Scholar]
  9. Carazza B. 1977. The history of the random-walk problem: considerations on the interdisciplinarity in modern physics. Riv. Nuovo Cimento Ser. 2 7:419–27 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carpenter RHS. 2004. Contrast, probability, and saccadic latency: evidence for independence of detection and decision. Curr. Biol. 14:1576–80 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cassey P, Heathcote A, Brown SD. 2014. Brain and behavior in decision-making. PLOS Comput. Biol. 10:e1003700 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cavanagh JF, Wiecki TV, Cohen MX, Figueroa CM, Samanta J. et al. 2011. Subthalamic nucleus stimulation reverses mediofrontal influence over decision threshold. Nat. Neurosci. 14:1462–67 [Google Scholar]
  13. Churchland AK, Kiani R, Shadlen MN. 2008. Decision-making with multiple alternatives. Nat. Neurosci. 11:693–702 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cisek P, Puskas GA, El-Murr S. 2009. Decisions in changing conditions: the urgency-gating model. J. Neurosci. 29:11560–71 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cohen MX. 2014. A neural microcircuit for cognitive conflict detection and signaling. Trends Neurosci. 37:480–90 [Google Scholar]
  16. Deco G, Rolls ET, Albantakis L, Romo R. 2013. Brain mechanisms for perceptual and reward-related decision-making. Prog. Neurobiol. 103:194–213 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ding L, Gold JI. 2012. Neural correlates of perceptual decision making before, during, and after decision commitment in monkey frontal eye field. Cereb. Cortex 22:1052–67 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ditterich J. 2006. Evidence for time-variant decision making. Eur. J. Neurosci. 24:3628–41 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ditterich J. 2010. A comparison between mechanisms of multi-alternative perceptual decision making: ability to explain human behavior, predictions for neurophysiology, and relationship with decision theory. Front. Neurosci. 4:184 [Google Scholar]
  20. Drugowitsch J, Moreno-Bote R, Churchland AK, Shadlen MN, Pouget A. 2012. The cost of accumulating evidence in perceptual decision making. J. Neurosci. 32:3612–28 [Google Scholar]
  21. Egan JP. 1958. Recognition memory and the operating characteristic USAF Oper. Appl. Lab Tech. Note AFCRC-TN-58-51, Hear. Commun. Lab., Indiana Univ., Bloomington, IN
  22. Einstein A. 1905. Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen. Ann. Phys. 17:549–60 [Google Scholar]
  23. Feller W. 1968. An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications. New York: Wiley
  24. Ferrera VP, Yanike M, Cassanello C. 2009. Frontal eye field neurons signal changes in decision criteria. Nat. Neurosci. 12:1458–62 [Google Scholar]
  25. Forstmann BU, Dutilh G, Brown S, Neumann J, von Cramon DY. et al. 2008. Striatum and pre-SMA facilitate decision-making under time pressure. PNAS 105:17538–42Showed that increased activity in a cortico-basal ganglia network is associated with interindividual differences in response caution. [Google Scholar]
  26. Forstmann BU, Wagenmakers EJ. 2015. An Introduction to Model-Based Cognitive Neuroscience New York: Springer
  27. Forstmann BU, Wagenmakers EJ, Eichele T, Brown S, Serences J. 2011. Reciprocal relations between cognitive neuroscience and cognitive models: opposites attract?. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6:272–79 [Google Scholar]
  28. Geddes J, Ratcliff R, Allerhand M, Childers R, Wright RJ. et al. 2010. Modeling the effects of hypoglycemia on a two-choice task in adult humans. Neuropsychologia 24:652–60 [Google Scholar]
  29. Glimcher PW. 2003. The neurobiology of visual-saccadic decision making. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 26:133–79 [Google Scholar]
  30. Good IJ. 1979. Studies in the history of probability and statistics. XXXVII. A.M. Turing's statistical work in World War II. Biometrika 66:393–96 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gold IJ, Law C-T, Connolly P, Bennur S. 2008. The relative influences of priors and sensory evidence on an oculomotor decision variable during perceptual learning. J. Neurophysiol. 100:2653–68 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gold IJ, Shadlen MN. 2000. Representation of a perceptual decision in developing oculomotor commands. Nature 404:390–94 [Google Scholar]
  33. Gold IJ, Shadlen MN. 2001. Neural computations that underlie decisions about sensory stimuli. Trends Cogn. Sci. 5:10–16 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gold IJ, Shadlen MN. 2007. The neural basis of decision making. Ann. Rev. Neurosci. 30:535–74 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hanes DP, Schall JD. 1996. Neural control of voluntary movement initiation. Science 274:427–30Proposed a connection between diffusion processes and buildup of activity in neurons involved in decision making. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hanks T, Kiani R, Shadlen MN. 2014. A neural mechanism of speed-accuracy tradeoff in macaque area LIP. eLife 3:e02260 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hanks TD, Mazurek ME, Kiani R, Hopp E, Shadlen MN. 2011. Elapsed decision time affects the weighting of prior probability in a perceptual decision task. J. Neurosci. 31:6339–52 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hawkins GE, Forstmann BU, Wagenmakers EJ, Ratcliff R, Brown SD. 2015. Revisiting the evidence for collapsing boundaries and urgency signals in perceptual decision making. J. Neurosci. 35:2476–84Tested one of the most popular dynamic-threshold extensions of the DDM in both humans and nonhuman primates. [Google Scholar]
  39. Heitz RP, Schall JD. 2012. Neural mechanisms of speed-accuracy tradeoff. Neuron 76:616–28 [Google Scholar]
  40. Horwitz GD, Newsome WT. 1999. Separate signals for target selection and movement specification in the superior colliculus. Science 284:1158–61 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kepecs A, Uchida N, Zariwala HA, Mainen ZF. 2008. Neural correlates, computation and behavioural impact of decision confidence. Nature 455:227–31 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kiani R, Corthell L, Shadlen MN. 2014. Choice certainty is informed by both evidence and decision time. Neuron 84:1329–42 [Google Scholar]
  43. Krajbich I, Armel C, Rangel A. 2010. Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nat. Neurosci. 13:1292–98 [Google Scholar]
  44. Laming DRJ. 1968. Information Theory of Choice-Reaction Times London: Academic
  45. Latty T, Beekman M. 2011. Speed-accuracy trade-offs during foraging decisions in the acellular slime mould Physarum polycephalum. Proc. R. Soc. B 278:539–45 [Google Scholar]
  46. Leite FP, Ratcliff R. 2010. Modeling reaction time and accuracy of multiple-alternative decisions. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 72:246–73 [Google Scholar]
  47. Leite FP, Ratcliff R. 2011. What cognitive processes drive response biases? A diffusion model analysis. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 6:651–87 [Google Scholar]
  48. Link SW, Heath RA. 1975. A sequential theory of psychological discrimination. Psychometrika 40:77–105 [Google Scholar]
  49. Luce RD. 1986. Response Times New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  50. Ma WJ, Beck JM, Latham PE, Pouget A. 2006. Bayesian inference with probabilistic population codes. Nat. Neurosci. 9:1432–38 [Google Scholar]
  51. Mulder MJ, Bos D, Weusten JMH, van Belle J, van Dijk SC. et al. 2010. Basic impairments in regulating the speed-accuracy tradeoff predict symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biol. Psychiatry 68:1114–19 [Google Scholar]
  52. Mulder MJ, van Maanen L, Forstmann BU. 2014. Perceptual decision neurosciences—a model-based review. Neuroscience 277:872–84Reviewed fMRI studies that used a model-based cognitive neuroscience approach to perceptual decision making. [Google Scholar]
  53. Mulder MJ, Wagenmakers EJ, Ratcliff R, Boekel W, Forstmann BU. 2012. Bias in the brain: a diffusion model analysis of prior probability and potential payoff. J. Neurosci. 32:2335–43 [Google Scholar]
  54. Murdock BB. 1974. Human Memory: Theory and Data Potomac, MD: Erlbaum
  55. Murdock BB, Anderson RE. 1975. Encoding, storage, and retrieval of item information. Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium RL Solso 145–94 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  56. Niwa M, Ditterich J. 2008. Perceptual decisions between multiple directions of visual motion. J. Neurosci. 28:4435–45 [Google Scholar]
  57. Oberauer K, Süß H-M, Wilhelm O, Wittmann WW. 2003. The multiple faces of working memory: storage, processing, supervision, and coordination. Intelligence 31:167–93 [Google Scholar]
  58. Philiastides MG, Ratcliff R, Sajda P. 2006. Neural representation of task difficulty and decision making during perceptual categorization: a timing diagram. J. Neurosci. 26:8965–75Used multivariate pattern analysis to derive spatiotemporal activity profiles that could discriminate between relevant stimulus categories and between different levels of difficulty. [Google Scholar]
  59. Platt M, Glimcher PW. 1999. Neural correlates of decision variables in parietal cortex. Nature 400:233–38 [Google Scholar]
  60. Pleskac TJ, Busemeyer J. 2010. Two-stage dynamic signal detection: a theory of confidence, choice, and response time. Psychol. Rev. 117:864–901 [Google Scholar]
  61. Purcell BA, Heitz RP, Cohen JY, Schall JD, Logan GD, Palmeri TJ. 2010. Neurally constrained modeling of perceptual decision making. Psychol. Rev. 117:1113–43 [Google Scholar]
  62. Ratcliff R. 1978. A theory of memory retrieval. Psychol. Rev. 85:59–108Introduced the DDM for RT distributions and accuracy, with application to recognition memory. [Google Scholar]
  63. Ratcliff R. 1985. Theoretical interpretations of speed and accuracy of positive and negative responses. Psychol. Rev. 92:212–25 [Google Scholar]
  64. Ratcliff R. 1988. Continuous versus discrete information processing: modeling the accumulation of partial information. Psychol. Rev. 95:238–55 [Google Scholar]
  65. Ratcliff R. 2002. A diffusion model account of response time and accuracy in a brightness discrimination task: fitting real data and failing to fit fake but plausible data. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 9:278–91 [Google Scholar]
  66. Ratcliff R. 2006. Modeling response signal and response time data. Cogn. Psychol. 53:195–237 [Google Scholar]
  67. Ratcliff R, Cherian A, Segraves M. 2003a. A comparison of macaque behavior and superior colliculus neuronal activity to predictions from models of simple two-choice decisions. J. Neurophysiol. 90:1392–407 [Google Scholar]
  68. Ratcliff R, Childers R. 2015. Individual differences and fitting methods for the two-choice diffusion model of decision making. Decision 2237–79
  69. Ratcliff R, Hasegawa YT, Hasegawa YP, Smith PL, Segraves MA. 2007a. Dual diffusion model for single-cell recording data from the superior colliculus in a brightness-discrimination task. J. Neurophysiol. 97:1756–74 [Google Scholar]
  70. Ratcliff R, Love J, Thompson CA, Opfer J. 2012. Children are not like older adults: a diffusion model analysis of developmental changes in speeded responses. Child Dev. 83:367–81 [Google Scholar]
  71. Ratcliff R, McKoon G. 2008. The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Comput. 20:873–922Reviewed DDM modeling, data, and applications. [Google Scholar]
  72. Ratcliff R, Perea M, Colangelo A, Buchanan L. 2004a. A diffusion model account of normal and impaired readers. Brain Cogn. 55:374–82 [Google Scholar]
  73. Ratcliff R, Philiastides MG, Sajda P. 2009. Quality of evidence for perceptual decision making is indexed by trial-to-trial variability of the EEG. PNAS 106:6539–44 [Google Scholar]
  74. Ratcliff R, Rouder JN. 1998. Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychol. Sci. 9:347–56 [Google Scholar]
  75. Ratcliff R, Smith PL. 2004. A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychol. Rev. 111:333–67 [Google Scholar]
  76. Ratcliff R, Starns JJ. 2013. Modeling confidence judgments, response times, and multiple choices in decision making: recognition memory and motion discrimination. Psychol. Rev. 120:697–719 [Google Scholar]
  77. Ratcliff R, Thapar A, McKoon G. 2001. The effects of aging on reaction time in a signal detection task. Psychol. Aging 16:323–41 [Google Scholar]
  78. Ratcliff R, Thapar A, McKoon G. 2003b. A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging on brightness discrimination. Percept. Psychophys. 65:523–35 [Google Scholar]
  79. Ratcliff R, Thapar A, McKoon G. 2004b. A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging on recognition memory. J. Mem. Lang. 50:408–24 [Google Scholar]
  80. Ratcliff R, Thapar A, McKoon G. 2007b. Application of the diffusion model to two-choice tasks for adults 75–90 years old. Psychol. Aging 22:56–66 [Google Scholar]
  81. Ratcliff R, Thapar A, McKoon G. 2010. Individual differences, aging, and IQ in two-choice tasks. Cogn. Psychol. 60:127–57 [Google Scholar]
  82. Ratcliff R, Thapar A, McKoon G. 2011. Effects of aging and IQ on item and associative memory. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 140:464–87 [Google Scholar]
  83. Ratcliff R, Van Dongen HPA. 2009. Sleep deprivation affects multiple distinct cognitive processes. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 16:742–51 [Google Scholar]
  84. Ratcliff R, Van Zandt T, McKoon G. 1999. Connectionist and diffusion models of reaction time. Psychol. Rev. 106:261–300 [Google Scholar]
  85. Resulaj A, Kiani R, Wolpert DM, Shadlen MN. 2009. Changes of mind in decision-making. Nature 461:263–66Introduced a DDM change-of-mind extension allowing information in the perceptual processing pipeline to influence and possibly overrule the initial decision. [Google Scholar]
  86. Riefer DM, Knapp BR, Batchelder WH, Bamber D, Manifold V. 2002. Cognitive psychometrics: assessing storage and retrieval deficits in special populations with multinomial processing tree models. Psychol. Assess. 14:184–201 [Google Scholar]
  87. Roitman JD, Shadlen MN. 2002. Response of neurons in the lateral interparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time task. J. Neurosci. 22:9475–89 [Google Scholar]
  88. Roxin A, Ledberg A. 2008. Neurobiological models of two-choice decision making can be reduced to a one-dimensional nonlinear diffusion equation. PLOS Comput. Biol. 4:e1000046 [Google Scholar]
  89. Schall JD. 2001. Neural basis of deciding, choosing and acting. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2:33–42 [Google Scholar]
  90. Schall JD. 2013. Macrocircuits: decision networks. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 23:269–74 [Google Scholar]
  91. Schmiedek F, Oberauer K, Wilhelm O, Süß H-M, Wittmann W. 2007. Individual differences in components of reaction time distributions and their relations to working memory and intelligence. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 136:414–29 [Google Scholar]
  92. Shadlen MN, Kiani R. 2013. Decision making as a window on cognition. Neuron 80:791–806 [Google Scholar]
  93. Shadlen MN, Newsome WT. 1996. Motion perception: seeing and deciding. PNAS 93:628–33 [Google Scholar]
  94. Shadlen MN, Newsome WT. 2001. Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey. J. Neurophysiol. 86:1916–36 [Google Scholar]
  95. Smith PL. 2000. Stochastic dynamic models of response time and accuracy: a foundational primer. J. Math. Psychol. 44:408–63 [Google Scholar]
  96. Smith PL. 2010. From Poisson shot noise to the integrated Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process: neurally principled models of diffusive evidence accumulation in decision-making and response time. J. Math. Psychol. 54:266–83 [Google Scholar]
  97. Starns JJ, Ratcliff R, McKoon G. 2012. Evaluating the unequal-variability and dual-process explanations of zROC slopes with response time data and the diffusion model. Cogn. Psychol. 64:1–34 [Google Scholar]
  98. Stone M. 1960. Models for choice reaction time. Psychometrika 25:251–60 [Google Scholar]
  99. Teodorescu AR, Usher M. 2013. Disentangling decision models: from independence to competition. Psychol. Rev. 120:1–38 [Google Scholar]
  100. Thapar A, Ratcliff R, McKoon G. 2003. A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging on letter discrimination. Psychol. Aging 18:415–29 [Google Scholar]
  101. Thura D, Beauregard-Racine J, Fradet CW, Cisek P. 2012. Decision making by urgency gating: theory and experimental support. J. Neurophysiol. 108:2912–30 [Google Scholar]
  102. Townsend JT, Ashby FG. 1983. Stochastic Modeling of Elementary Psychological Processes London: Cambridge Univ. Press
  103. Usher M, McClelland JL. 2001. The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychol. Rev. 108:550–92Outlined one of the first models to implement principles from the neuroscience of decision making in a formal psychological model. [Google Scholar]
  104. van Ravenzwaaij D, Brown S, Wagenmakers EJ. 2011. An integrated perspective on the relation between response speed and intelligence. Cognition 119:381–93 [Google Scholar]
  105. van Ravenzwaaij D, Dutilh G, Wagenmakers EJ. 2012. A diffusion model decomposition of the effects of alcohol on perceptual decision making. Psychopharmacology 219:1017–25 [Google Scholar]
  106. van Vugt MK, Simen P, Nystrom LE, Holmes P, Cohen JD. 2012. EEG oscillations reveal neural correlates of evidence accumulation. Front. Neurosci. 6:106 [Google Scholar]
  107. Van Zandt T. 2002. Analysis of response time distributions. Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology 4 Methodology in Experimental Psychology JT Wixted, H Pashler 461–516 New York: Wiley, 3rd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  108. Van Zandt T, Colonius H, Proctor RW. 2000. A comparison of two response time models applied to perceptual matching. Psychol. Bull. Rev. 7:208–56 [Google Scholar]
  109. Vandekerckhove J, Tuerlinckx F. 2007. Fitting the Ratcliff diffusion model to experimental data. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14:1011–26 [Google Scholar]
  110. Vandekerckhove J, Tuerlinckx F. 2008. Diffusion model analysis with MATLAB: a DMAT primer. Behav. Res. Methods 40:61–72 [Google Scholar]
  111. Vandekerckhove J, Tuerlinckx F, Lee MD. 2011. Hierarchical diffusion models for two-choice response times. Psychol. Methods 16:44–62 [Google Scholar]
  112. Vickers D. 1979. Decision Processes in Visual Perception New York: Academic
  113. Vickers D, Lee MD. 1998. Dynamic models of simple judgments. I: Properties of a self-regulating accumulator module. Nonlinear Dyn. Psychol. Life Sci. 2:169–94 [Google Scholar]
  114. Voss A, Nagler M, Lerche V. 2013. Diffusion models in experimental psychology: a practical introduction. Exp. Psychol. 60:385–402 [Google Scholar]
  115. Voss A, Rothermund K, Voss J. 2004. Interpreting the parameters of the diffusion model: an empirical validation. Mem. Cogn. 32:1206–20 [Google Scholar]
  116. Voss A, Voss J. 2007. Fast-dm: a free program for efficient diffusion model analysis. Behav. Res. Methods 39:767–75 [Google Scholar]
  117. Voss A, Voss J. 2008. A fast numerical algorithm for the estimation of diffusion-model parameters. J. Math. Psychol. 52:1–9 [Google Scholar]
  118. Wabersich D, Vandekerckhove J. 2014. Extending JAGS: a tutorial on adding custom distributions to JAGS (with a diffusion model example). Behav. Res. Methods 46:15–28 [Google Scholar]
  119. Wagenmakers EJ. 2009. Methodological and empirical developments for the Ratcliff diffusion model of response times and accuracy. Eur. J. Cogn. Psychol. 21:641–71 [Google Scholar]
  120. Wagenmakers EJ, Brown S. 2007. On the linear relation between the mean and the standard deviation of a response time distribution. Psychol. Rev. 114:830–41 [Google Scholar]
  121. Wagenmakers EJ, Ratcliff R, Gomez P, McKoon G. 2008. A diffusion model account of criterion shifts in the lexical decision task. J. Mem. Lang. 58:140–59 [Google Scholar]
  122. Wagenmakers EJ, van der Maas HL, Grasman RP. 2007. An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14:3–22 [Google Scholar]
  123. Wald A, Wolfowitz J. 1948. Optimum character of the sequential probability ratio test. Ann. Math. Stat. 19:326–39 [Google Scholar]
  124. Wang XJ. 2008. Decision making in recurrent neuronal circuits. Neuron 60:215–34 [Google Scholar]
  125. White C, Ratcliff R, Vasey M, McKoon G. 2009. Dysphoria and memory for emotional material: a diffusion model analysis. Cogn. Emot. 23:181–205 [Google Scholar]
  126. White CN, Ratcliff R, Vasey MW, McKoon G. 2010. Using diffusion models to understand clinical disorders. J. Math. Psychol. 54:39–52 [Google Scholar]
  127. Wiecki TV, Sofer I, Frank MJ. 2013. HDDM: Hierarchical Bayesian estimation of the drift-diffusion model in Python. Front Neuroinform. 7:14 [Google Scholar]
  128. Wong KF, Wang XJ. 2006. A recurrent network mechanism of time integration in perceptual decisions. J. Neurosci. 26:1314–28 [Google Scholar]
  129. Wyart V, de Gardelle V, Scholl J, Summerfield C. 2012. Rhythmic fluctuations in evidence accumulation during decision making in the human brain. Neuron 76:847–58 [Google Scholar]
  130. Zandbelt B, Purcell BA, Palmeri TJ, Logan GD, Schall JD. 2014. Response times from ensembles of accumulators. PNAS 111:2848–53 [Google Scholar]
  131. Zeguers MHT, Snellings P, Tijms J, Weeda WD, Tamboer P. et al. 2011. Specifying theories of developmental dyslexia: a diffusion model analysis of word recognition. Dev. Sci. 14:1340–54 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033645
Loading
Sequential Sampling Models in Cognitive Neuroscience: Advantages, Applications, and Extensions
Annual Review of Psychology 67, 641 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033645
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033645
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033645
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error