Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 6/2019

09-12-2017 | Original Article

Experimental validation of the diffusion model based on a slow response time paradigm

Auteurs: Veronika Lerche, Andreas Voss

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2019

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

The diffusion model (Ratcliff, Psychol Rev 85(2):59–108, 1978) is a stochastic model that is applied to response time (RT) data from binary decision tasks. The model is often used to disentangle different cognitive processes. The validity of the diffusion model parameters has, however, rarely been examined. Only few experimental paradigms have been analyzed with those being restricted to fast response time paradigms. This is attributable to a recommendation stated repeatedly in the diffusion model literature to restrict applications to fast RT paradigms (more specifically, to tasks with mean RTs below 1.5 s per trial). We conducted experimental validation studies in which we challenged the necessity of this restriction. We used a binary task that features RTs of several seconds per trial and experimentally examined the convergent and discriminant validity of the four main diffusion model parameters. More precisely, in three experiments, we selectively manipulated these parameters, using a difficulty manipulation (drift rate), speed-accuracy instructions (threshold separation), a more complex motoric task (non-decision time), and an asymmetric payoff matrix (starting point). The results were similar to the findings from experimental validation studies based on fast RT paradigms. Thus, our experiments support the validity of the parameters of the diffusion model and speak in favor of an extension of the model to paradigms based on slower RTs.
Voetnoten
1
dz = \(\frac{Mean(Condition 1-Condition 2)}{SD(Condition 1-Condition 2)}\).
 
2
Participants had to work on another unrelated decision task (an anagram task) either before or after the figural task. The order of the two tasks was counterbalanced. The anagram task is not part of this manuscript. In further analyses, we included the order of tasks as additional factor and we did not find any significant interaction effects.
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Bock, O., Baetge, I., & Nicklisch, A. (2014). hroot: Hamburg registration and organization online tool. European Economic Review, 71, 117–120.CrossRef Bock, O., Baetge, I., & Nicklisch, A. (2014). hroot: Hamburg registration and organization online tool. European Economic Review, 71, 117–120.CrossRef
go back to reference Dutilh, G., Annis, J., Brown, S. D., Cassey, P., Evans, N. J., Grasman, R. P. P. P., Donkin, C. (2017). The quality of response time data inference: A blinded, collaborative assessment of the validity of cognitive models. Manuscript submitted for publication. Dutilh, G., Annis, J., Brown, S. D., Cassey, P., Evans, N. J., Grasman, R. P. P. P., Donkin, C. (2017). The quality of response time data inference: A blinded, collaborative assessment of the validity of cognitive models. Manuscript submitted for publication.
go back to reference Lerche, V., & Voss, A. (2017). Speed-accuracy manipulation in diffusion modeling: Lack of discriminant validity of the manipulation or the parameter estimates? Manuscript submitted for publication. Lerche, V., & Voss, A. (2017). Speed-accuracy manipulation in diffusion modeling: Lack of discriminant validity of the manipulation or the parameter estimates? Manuscript submitted for publication.
Metagegevens
Titel
Experimental validation of the diffusion model based on a slow response time paradigm
Auteurs
Veronika Lerche
Andreas Voss
Publicatiedatum
09-12-2017
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2019
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0945-8

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2019

Psychological Research 6/2019 Naar de uitgave