The Tweedledum and Tweedledee of dynamic decisions
Discriminating between diffusion decision and accumulator models
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21640484 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Peter D Kvam (0000-0002-3195-8452, The Ohio State University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 588-613 |
| Publication date | 2025-04-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1069-9384 • E-ISSN: 1531-5320 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.3758/s13423-024-02587-0 |
| PMID | 39354295 |
| OpenAlex | W4403011531 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 97 |
Theories of dynamic decision-making are typically built on evidence accumulation, which is modeled using racing accumulators or diffusion models that track a shifting balance of support over time. However, these two types of models are only two special cases of a more general evidence accumulation process where options correspond to directions in an accumulation space. Using this generalized evidence accumulation approach as a starting point, I identify four ways to discriminate between absolute-evidence and relative-evidence models. First, an experimenter can look at the information that decision-makers considered to identify whether there is a filtering of near-zero evidence samples, which is characteristic of a relative-evidence decision rule (e.g., diffusion decision model). Second, an experimenter can disentangle different components of drift rates by manipulating the discriminability of the two response options relative to the stimulus to delineate the balance of evidence from the total amount of evidence. Third, a modeler can use machine learning to classify a set of data according to its generative model. Finally, machine learning can also be used to directly estimate the geometric relationships between choice options. I illustrate these different approaches by applying them to data from an orientation-discrimination task, showing converging conclusions across all four methods in favor of accumulator-based representations of evidence during choice. These tools can clearly delineate absolute-evidence and relative-evidence models, and should be useful for comparing many other types of decision theories
Algorithm · Cognitive psychology · Decision process · Econometrics · Machine learning · Management science · Computer Science · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Economic and Environmental Valuation · Mathematics · Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies · Psychology · Artificial Intelligence
Diffusion and Random Walk Processes
Two-stage dynamic signal detection
The Analysis of Proximities
Decision field theory
Diffusion Decision Model
Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists
A Comparison of Sequential Sampling Models for Two-Choice Reaction Time.
The Diffusion Decision Model
A theory of memory retrieval.
Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions
The physics of optimal decision making
The time course of perceptual choice
Sequential Sampling Models in Cognitive Neuroscience
The simplest complete model of choice response time
The Neural Basis of Decision Making
Modeling Response Times for Two-Choice Decisions
Sequential sampling models without random between-trial variability
Perceptual change-of-mind decisions are sensitive to absolute evidence magnitude
From theories to models to predictions
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2025 (1) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |