LATER models of neural decision behavior in choice tasks

Abstract

Reaction time has been increasingly used over the last few decades to provide information on neural decision processes: it is a direct reflection of decision time. Saccades provide an excellent paradigm for this because many of them can be made in a very short time and the underlying neural pathways are relatively well-known. LATER (linear approach to threshold with ergodic rate) is a model originally devised to explain reaction time distributions in simple decision tasks. Recently, however it is being extended to increasingly more advanced tasks, including those with decision errors and those requiring voluntary control such as the antisaccade task and those where sequential decisions are required. The strength of this modeling approach lies in its detailed, quantitative predictions of behavior, yet LATER models still retain their conceptual simplicity that made LATER initially successful in explaining reaction times in simple decision tasks.

Towards a unifying mechanism for cancelling movements

“…Altering the prior probability S 0 should result in a specific change, a 'swivel', in the subjects' RT distribution; and indeed this is what was observed [13]. The LATER model itself has been recently reviewed elsewhere [1,2,17].…”

Death anxiety and visual oculomotor processing of arousing stimuli in a free view setting

“…The finding of no significant difference in the event start for the trials supports the theory that the effect of DA is not related to basic idiosyncratic between group differences. Because there are no between group differences related to the decision signal/onset of the trial, there is no interest in testing additional models for a deeper analysis (as described in Carpenter, ; Carpenter, Redd & Anderson, ; Carpenter & Williams ; Noorani, ). The preliminary analysis showed that the average latency in the CG was below 275 ms, and the average latency in the EG was above 275 ms, when both aggregated data and raw data were considered.…”

Inhibition failures and late errors in the antisaccade task: influence of cue delay

“…On the one hand, the model in Noorani and Carpenter (2013) does not incorporate a late decision process and thereby it explains all errors as inhibition failures. On the other hand, lateral inhibition models (Cutsuridis et al, 2007;2014;Cutsuridis, 2015) explain errors as the result of connected accumulators that represent pro-and antisaccades, without the intervention of a third inhibitory unit. Accordingly, an error occurs when a voluntary action does not inhibit a reflex-like prosaccade.…”