A note on decomposition of sources of variability in perceptual decision-making

被引:4
|
作者
Kang, Inhan [1 ]
Ratcliff, Roger [1 ]
Voskuilen, Chelsea [2 ]
机构
[1] Ohio State Univ, 291 Psychol Bldg,1835 Neil Ave, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[2] Ford Motor Co Ltd, Brentwood, Essex, England
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Double-pass procedure; Linear ballistic accumulator model; Response time and accuracy; Sources of variability; SIGNAL-DETECTION; EXTERNAL NOISE; MODELS; CHOICE; ACCURACY;
D O I
10.1016/j.jmp.2020.102431
中图分类号
O1 [数学];
学科分类号
0701 ; 070101 ;
摘要
Information processing underlying human perceptual decision-making is inherently noisy and identifying sources of this noise is important to understand processing. Ratcliff, Voskuilen, and McKoon (2018) examined results from five experiments using a double-pass procedure in which stimuli were repeated typically a hundred trials later. Greater than chance agreement between repeated tests provided evidence for trial-to-trial variability from external sources of noise. They applied the diffusion model to estimate the quality of evidence driving the decision process (drift rate) and the variability (standard deviation) in drift rate across trials. This variability can be decomposed into random (internal) and systematic (external) components by comparing the double-pass accuracy and agreement with the model predictions. In this note, we provide an additional analysis of the double-pass experiments using the linear ballistic accumulator (LBA) model. The LBA model does not have within-trial variability and thus it captures all variabilities in processing with its across-trial variability parameters. The LBA analysis of the double-pass data provides model-based evidence of external variability in a decision process, which is consistent with Ratcliff et al.'s result. This demonstrates that across-trial variability is required to model perceptual decision-making. The LBA model provides measures of systematic and random variability as the diffusion model did. But due to the lack of within-trial variability, the LBA model estimated the random component as a larger proportion of across-trial total variability than did the diffusion model. (c) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Sensory and environmental uncertainty in perceptual decision-making
    Fritsch, Merve
    Weilnhammer, Veith
    Thiele, Paul
    Heinz, Andreas
    Sterzer, Philipp
    [J]. ISCIENCE, 2023, 26 (04)
  • [22] Microgravity induces overconfidence in perceptual decision-making
    Leyla Loued-Khenissi
    Christian Pfeiffer
    Rupal Saxena
    Shivam Adarsh
    Davide Scaramuzza
    [J]. Scientific Reports, 13
  • [23] The Effect of Reward Information on Perceptual Decision-Making
    Mahesan, Devu
    Chawla, Manisha
    Miyapuram, Krishna P.
    [J]. NEURAL INFORMATION PROCESSING, ICONIP 2016, PT IV, 2016, 9950 : 156 - 163
  • [24] A note on participatory decision-making and rationality
    Heap, SPH
    [J]. CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 2004, 28 (03) : 457 - 467
  • [25] NOTE ON ROBUSTNESS AND INTERDEPENDENT DECISION-MAKING
    ROSENHEAD, J
    WIEDEMANN, P
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE OPERATIONAL RESEARCH SOCIETY, 1979, 30 (09) : 833 - 834
  • [26] Decision-making with heterogeneous sources of information
    Richards, D
    Rowe, WD
    [J]. RISK ANALYSIS, 1999, 19 (01) : 69 - 81
  • [27] SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR BIOMEDICAL DECISION-MAKING
    OSIOBE, S
    [J]. METHODS OF INFORMATION IN MEDICINE, 1985, 24 (04) : 225 - 229
  • [28] OBSERVER VARIABILITY AND CLINICAL DECISION-MAKING
    HABBEMA, JDF
    HILDEN, J
    [J]. MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1991, 11 (01) : 69 - 69
  • [29] Perceptual awareness lags perceptual decision-making with degraded motion stimuli
    de'Sperati, C.
    Balderi, M.
    Gregori-Grgic, R.
    Agatino, D.
    [J]. PERCEPTION, 2010, 39 : 123 - 123
  • [30] A general mechanism for perceptual decision-making in the human brain
    Heekeren, HR
    Marrett, S
    Bandettini, PA
    Ungerleider, LG
    [J]. NATURE, 2004, 431 (7010) : 859 - 862