Bayes factors for the linear ballistic accumulator model of decision-making
Evidence accumulation models of decision-making have led to advances in several different areas of psychology. These models provide a way to integrate response time and accuracy data, and to describe performance in terms of latent cognitive processes. Testing important psychological hypotheses using cognitive models requires a method to make inferences about different versions of the models which assume different parameters to cause observed effects. The task of model-based inference using noisy data is difficult, and has proven especially problematic with current model selection methods based on parameter estimation. We provide a method for computing Bayes factors through Monte-Carlo integration for the linear ballistic accumulator (LBA; Brown and Heathcote, 2008), a widely used evidence accumulation model. Bayes factors are used frequently for inference with simpler statistical models, and they do not require parameter estimation. In order to overcome the computational burden of estimating Bayes factors via brute force integration, we exploit general purpose graphical processing units; we provide free code for this. This approach allows estimation of Bayes factors via Monte-Carlo integration within a practical time frame. We demonstrate the method using both simulated and real data. We investigate the stability of the Monte-Carlo approximation, and the LBA’s inferential properties, in simulation studies.
KeywordsGPU Bayes factor Decision-making
- Brown, S. D., Marley, A., Donkin, C., Heathcote, A., & et al. (2008). An integrated model of choices and response times in absolute identification— nova. The University of Newcastle’s Digital Repository.Google Scholar
- Burman, K., & Anderson, D. (2002). Model selection and multi-model inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Forstmann, B. U., Anwander, A., Schäfer, A., Neumann, J., Brown, S., Wagenmakers, E.-J., & Turner, R. (2010). Cortico-striatal connections predict control over speed and accuracy in perceptual decision making., In Proceedings of the national academy of sciences (Vol. 107, pp. 15916–15920).Google Scholar
- Forstmann, B. U., Dutilh, G., Brown, S., Neumann, J., Von Cramon, D. Y., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2008). Striatum and pre-SMA facilitate decision-making under time pressure., In Proceedings of the national academy of sciences (Vol. 105, pp. 17538–17542).Google Scholar
- Lee, M. D. (in press). Bayesian methods in cognitive modeling. The Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Fourth Edition.Google Scholar
- Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., & Van der Linde, A. (1998). Bayesian deviance, the effective number of parameters, and the comparison of arbitrarily complex models. Research Report, 98–009.Google Scholar
- Vehtari, A., & Gelman, A. (2014). WAIC and cross-validation in Stan. Submitted. http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/waic_stan.pdf Accessed, 27(2015), 5.
- Wagenmakers, E. J., Van Der Maas, H. L., & Grasman, R. P. (2007). An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 3–22.Google Scholar