Diffusion versus linear ballistic accumulation: different models but the same conclusions about psychological processes?
Diffusion versus linear ballistic accumulation: different models but the same conclusions about psychological processes?
复制标题
DOI：
10.3758/s13423-010-0022-4
复制
发表时间：
2011-02-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Donkin, Chris;Brown, Scott;Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan
反应时间和准确性的定量模型越来越多地被用作得出心理过程结论的工具。在这里，我们调查的程度，这些实质性的结论取决于研究人员是否使用拉特克利夫扩散模型或线性弹道蓄电池模型。模拟结果表明，模型同意的影响，在信息积累率和非决策时间的变化，但他们不同意的反应谨慎的变化的影响。然而，在拟合经验数据时，模型往往会对谨慎反应的实验操作的影响达成密切一致。我们讨论了这些相互矛盾的结果的影响，得出的结论是，真实的操纵谨慎地图密切，但不完美的反应谨慎在任何一个模型。重要的是，我们得出结论，从真实的数据中得出的心理过程的推论不太可能依赖于所使用的模型。
Quantitative models for response time and accuracy are increasingly used as tools to draw conclusions about psychological processes. Here we investigate the extent to which these substantive conclusions depend on whether researchers use the Ratcliff diffusion model or the Linear Ballistic Accumulator model. Simulations show that the models agree on the effects of changes in the rate of information accumulation and changes in non-decision time, but that they disagree on the effects of changes in response caution. In fits to empirical data, however, the models tend to agree closely on the effects of an experimental manipulation of response caution. We discuss the implications of these conflicting results, concluding that real manipulations of caution map closely, but not perfectly to response caution in either model. Importantly, we conclude that inferences about psychological processes made from real data are unlikely to depend on the model that is used.