Automatic and controlled stimulus processing in conflict tasks: Superimposed diffusion processes and delta functions

Ulrich, Rolf; Schröter, Hannes; Leuthold, Hartmut; Birngruber, Teresa

doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.02.005

Cited by 279 publications

(731 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

693

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In incompatible trials, the early incorrect automatic activation hampers the decision process and increases the likelihood of an incorrect choice. Ulrich et al (2015) demonstrated that the DMC captures all the behavioral peculiarities of Simon task performance. Moreover, the model can explain data from other conflict tasks by variations in the characteristic time parameter τ of the gamma automatic activation.…”

Section: Dmc Architecturementioning

confidence: 97%

“…CAFs were constructed by sorting the RT data into five bins of equal size; the proportion of errors in each RT bin was then computed, providing the error data considered in the fitting procedure. Model predictions were obtained by running Monte Carlo simulations with an integration constant dt = 1 msec and a diffusion noise σ fixed at 4, similar to Ulrich et al (2015). Predicted and observed data were compared through a likelihood ratio chi-square statistic, G 2 :…”

Section: Dmc Fittingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the majority of studies seeking to address complex decisions have dealt with multiple-choice tasks (e.g., Keuken et al, 2015;Ratcliff & Starns, 2013;Van Maanen et al, 2012;Leite & Ratcliff, 2010;Albantakis & Deco, 2009;Churchland, Kiani, & Shadlen, 2008;Usher & McClelland, 2004), others have started to uncover the mechanisms underlying decisions about relevance (Ulrich, Schröter, Leuthold, & Birngruber, 2015;Servant, Montagnini, & Burle, 2014;White, Ratcliff, & Starns, 2011;Hübner, Steinhauser, & Lehle, 2010). These studies have focused on the conflict paradigm, where task-relevant and taskirrelevant stimulus attributes compete for response activation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…These particular patterns are not naturally predicted by standard decision-making theories White et al, 2011;Hübner et al, 2010;Wagenmakers & Brown, 2007;Luce, 1986). Ulrich et al (2015) have recently introduced an extension of the drift diffusion model of perceptual decision-making (Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008;Ratcliff, 1978) able to capture RT distributions and accuracy data in the Simon task, allowing for decomposition and quantification of latent cognitive processes (hereafter referred to as diffusion model for conflict tasks [DMC]). The aim of the present work was to use the DMC as a tool to better interpret human electrophysiological measurements in the Simon task.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Linking Theoretical Decision-making Mechanisms in the Simon Task with Electrophysiological Data: A Model-based Neuroscience Study in Humans

Servant

White

Montagnini

et al. 2016

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A current challenge for decision-making research is in extending models of simple decisions to more complex and ecological choice situations. Conflict tasks (e.g., Simon, Stroop, Eriksen flanker) have been the focus of much interest, because they provide a decision-making context representative of everyday life experiences. Modeling efforts have led to an elaborated drift diffusion model for conflict tasks (DMC), which implements a superimposition of automatic and controlled decision activations. The DMC has proven to capture the diversity of behavioral conflict effects across various task contexts. This study combined DMC predictions with EEG and EMG measurements to test a set of linking propositions that specify the relationship between theoretical decision-making mechanisms involved in the Simon task and brain activity. Our results are consistent with a representation of the superimposed decision variable in the primary motor cortices. The decision variable was also observed in the EMG activity of response agonist muscles. These findings provide new insight into the neurophysiology of human decision-making. In return, they provide support for the DMC model framework.

show abstract

Section: Dmc Architecturementioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Dmc Fittingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Linking Theoretical Decision-making Mechanisms in the Simon Task with Electrophysiological Data: A Model-based Neuroscience Study in Humans

Servant

White

Montagnini

et al. 2016

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, the SSP assumes The SSP provides a theoretical account of processing for flanker stimuli and has been shown to account for data from flanker tasks (White et al 2011). Other models exist that accomplish the same goal for flanker stimuli, including the dualstage two-phase model (Hübner et al 2010) and the diffusion model for conflict tasks (Ulrich et al 2015). However, this study focuses on the spotlight model over the others because (1) it was designed specifically for visual attention tasks with flanker stimuli, and (2) it has been shown to provide better parameter estimation from behavioral data (White, Servant, and Logan 2018), which is elaborated upon later.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cueing Effects in the Attentional Network Test: a Spotlight Diffusion Model Analysis

White

Curl

2018

Comput Brain Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The attentional network test (ANT) uses flanker stimuli with different cue conditions to quantify differences in attentional processing. However, it is unclear precisely how the alerting and orienting cues in the task affect different decision processes. The present study leveraged computational modeling to identify the relationship between attentional cues and decision components. ANT data from a large sample of 156 participants were analyzed using the spotlight diffusion model, which quantifies decision components for response caution, motor/encoding time, perceptual processing, and attentional control. The spotlight analysis showed that the attentional cues had multiple effects on decision processing. Compared to the no cue condition, an alerting cue led to faster encoding/motor speed, improved perceptual processing, and increased attentional focusing. The orienting cue further led to a decrease in response caution and increased encoding/motor speed and attentional focusing to reduce interference from incompatible flankers. This analysis demonstrates that alerting and orienting cues have complex effects on decision processes that are not captured by simple differences in RTs, and that model-based analyses can delineate such effects to allow researchers to identify precisely how attentional processing varies across individuals or conditions in tasks like the ANT.

show abstract

Selection and Control of Action

Proctor

2012

Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Automatic and controlled stimulus processing in conflict tasks: Superimposed diffusion processes and delta functions

Cited by 279 publications

References 66 publications

Linking Theoretical Decision-making Mechanisms in the Simon Task with Electrophysiological Data: A Model-based Neuroscience Study in Humans

Linking Theoretical Decision-making Mechanisms in the Simon Task with Electrophysiological Data: A Model-based Neuroscience Study in Humans

Cueing Effects in the Attentional Network Test: a Spotlight Diffusion Model Analysis

Selection and Control of Action

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About