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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
dz = \(\frac{Mean(Condition 1-Condition 2)}{SD(Condition 1-Condition 2)}\).
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.
References
Arnold, N. R., Bröder, A., & Bayen, U. J. (2015). Empirical validation of the diffusion model for recognition memory and a comparison of parameter-estimation methods. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 79(5), 882–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0608-y.
Aschenbrenner, A. J., Balota, D. A., Gordon, B. A., Ratcliff, R., & Morris, J. C. (2016). A diffusion model analysis of episodic recognition in preclinical individuals with a family history for Alzheimer’s disease: The adult children study. Neuropsychology, 30(2), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000222.
Bock, O., Baetge, I., & Nicklisch, A. (2014). hroot: Hamburg registration and organization online tool. European Economic Review, 71, 117–120.
Bowen, H. J., Spaniol, J., Patel, R., & Voss, A. (2016). A diffusion model analysis of decision biases affecting delayed recognition of emotional stimuli. PLoS ONE, 11(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146769.
Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology, 57(3), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.12.002.
Diederich, A., & Oswald, P. (2014). Sequential sampling model for multiattribute choice alternatives with random attention time and processing order. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(697). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00697.
Dummel, S., Rummel, J., & Voss, A. (2016). Additional information is not ignored: New evidence for information integration and inhibition in take-the-best decisions. Acta Psychologica, 163, 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.12.001.
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., Vandekerckhove, J., Tuerlinckx, F., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2009). A diffusion model decomposition of the practice effect. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16(6), 1026–1036. https://doi.org/10.3758/16.6.1026.
Germar, M., Albrecht, T., Voss, A., & Mojzisch, A. (2016). Social conformity is due to biased stimulus processing: electrophysiological and diffusion analyses. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw050.
Germar, M., Schlemmer, A., Krug, K., Voss, A., & Mojzisch, A. (2014). Social influence and perceptual decision making: A diffusion model analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(2), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213508985.
Hawkins, G. E., Forstmann, B. U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ratcliff, R., & Brown, S. D. (2015). Revisiting the evidence for collapsing boundaries and urgency signals in perceptual decision-making. The Journal of Neuroscience, 35(6), 2476–2484. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2410-14.2015.
Kahane, G., Wiech, K., Shackel, N., Farias, M., Savulescu, J., & Tracey, I. (2012). The neural basis of intuitive and counterintuitive moral judgment. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(4), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr005.
Khan, M. A., Lawrence, G. P., Buckolz, E., & Franks, I. M. (2006). Programming strategies for rapid aiming movements under simple and choice reaction time conditions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(3), 524–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000809.
Lerche, V., & Voss, A. (2016a). Model complexity in diffusion modeling: Benefits of making the model more parsimonious. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1324). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01324.
Lerche, V., & Voss, A. (2016b). Retest reliability of the parameters of the Ratcliff diffusion model. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0770-5.
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., & Nagler, M. (2016). How many trials are required for parameter estimation in diffusion modeling? A comparison of different optimization criteria. Behavior Research Methods, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0740-2.
Rae, B., Heathcote, A., Donkin, C., Averell, L., & Brown, S. (2014). The hare and the tortoise: Emphasizing speed can change the evidence used to make decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(5), 1226–1243. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036801.
Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.85.2.59.
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. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 278–291. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196283.
Ratcliff, R. (2008). Modeling aging effects on two-choice tasks: Response signal and response time data. Psychology and Aging, 23(4), 900–916. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013930.
Ratcliff, R. (2014). Measuring psychometric functions with the diffusion model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(2), 870–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034954.
Ratcliff, R., & Frank, M. J. (2012). Reinforcement-based decision making in corticostriatal circuits: mutual constraints by neurocomputational and diffusion models. Neural Computation, 24(5), 1186–1229. https://doi.org/10.1162/NECO_a_00270.
Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20(4), 873–922. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420.
Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. N. (1998). Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychological Science, 9(5), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00067.
Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D., & McKoon, G. (2016). Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 260–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007.
Ratcliff, R., Thapar, A., Gomez, P., & McKoon, G. (2004). A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging in the lexical-decision task. Psychology and Aging, 19(2), 278. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.19.2.278.
Ratcliff, R., Thapar, A., & McKoon, G. (2004). A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging on recognition memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 408–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2003.11.002.
Ratcliff, R., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2002). Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: Approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 438–481. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196302.
Rinkenauer, G., Osman, A., Ulrich, R., Müller-Gethmann, H., & Mattes, S. (2004). On the locus of speed-accuracy trade-off in reaction time: Inferences from the lateralized readiness potential. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 133(2), 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.261.
Spaniol, J., Voss, A., & Grady, C. L. (2008). Aging and emotional memory: Cognitive mechanisms underlying the positivity effect. Psychology and Aging, 23(4), 859–872. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014218.
Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2001). The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108(3), 550–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.550.
van Ravenzwaaij, D., Donkin, C., & Vandekerckhove, J. (2016). The EZ diffusion model provides a powerful test of simple empirical effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1081-y.
Voss, A., Nagler, M., & Lerche, V. (2013). Diffusion models in experimental psychology: A practical introduction. Experimental Psychology, 60(6), 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000218.
Voss, A., Rothermund, K., & Voss, J. (2004). Interpreting the parameters of the diffusion model: An empirical validation. Memory & Cognition, 32(7), 1206–1220. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196893.
Voss, A., & Voss, J. (2007). Fast-dm: A free program for efficient diffusion model analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 767–775. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192967.
Voss, A., & Voss, J. (2008). A fast numerical algorithm for the estimation of diffusion model parameters. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 52(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2007.09.005.
Voss, A., Voss, J., & Lerche, V. (2015). Assessing cognitive processes with diffusion model analyses: a tutorial based on fast-dm-30. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(336). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00336.
Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2009). Methodological and empirical developments for the Ratcliff diffusion model of response times and accuracy. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(5), 641–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440802205067.
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ratcliff, R., Gomez, P., & McKoon, G. (2008). A diffusion model account of criterion shifts in the lexical decision task. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(1), 140–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.006.
Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and individual differences, 30(4), 669–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00064-7.
Yap, M. J., Sibley, D. E., Balota, D. A., Ratcliff, R., & Rueckl, J. (2015). Responding to nonwords in the lexical decision task: Insights from the English Lexicon Project. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(3), 597–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000064.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
This research was supported by a Grant from the German Research Foundation to Andreas Voss (Grant no. VO1288/2–2).
Conflict of interest
Both authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the studies.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lerche, V., Voss, A. Experimental validation of the diffusion model based on a slow response time paradigm. Psychological Research 83, 1194–1209 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0945-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0945-8