Response-time data provide critical constraints on dynamic models of multi-alternative, multi-attribute choice

Abstract

Understanding the cognitive processes involved in multi-alternative, multi-attribute choice is of interest to a wide range of fields including psychology, neuroscience, and economics. Prior investigations in this domain have relied primarily on choice data to compare different theories. Despite numerous such studies, results have largely been inconclusive. Our study uses state-of-the-art response-time modeling and data from 12 different experiments appearing in six different published studies to compare four previously proposed theories/models of these effects: multi-alternative decision field theory (MDFT), the leaky-competing accumulator (LCA), the multi-attribute linear ballistic accumulator (MLBA), and the associative accumulation model (AAM). All four models are, by design, dynamic process models and thus a comprehensive evaluation of their theoretical properties requires quantitative evaluation with both choice and response-time data. Our results show that response-time data is critical at distinguishing among these models and that using choice data alone can lead to inconclusive results for some datasets. In conclusion, we encourage future research to include response-time data in the evaluation of these models.

Robust Modeling in Cognitive Science

“…Thus, simply relying on a checklist of effects misses important aspects of the psychological phenomena being explored, and mischaracterizes the behavior for which an explanation is sought. A better approach is to evaluate detailed cognitive models of the decision processes involved, testing the accuracy of their predictions about the individual decisions that individual people make on these tasks (Evans, Holmes, & Trueblood, 2018;Turner, Schley, Muller, & Tsetsos, 2017).…”

A comparison of conflict diffusion models in the flanker task through pseudolikelihood Bayes factors.

“…PDA methods replace the likelihood with a pseudo-likelihood, with the pseudolikelihood being an approximation to the likelihood obtained through simulation and density estimation (Turner & Sederberg, 2014;Holmes, 2015;Evans, Holmes, & Trueblood, 2019 is a method for estimating the marginal likelihood for a model in a specified data set. In order to determine which of a series of models provides the best explanation of the underlying psychological process, these models must be compared; however, simply assessing which model provides the best fit to the data is inadequate, as more flexible models are provided with an unfair advantage over simpler models.…”

Linking the Ex-Gaussian Parameters to Cognitive Stages: Insights from the Linear Ballistic Accumulator (LBA) Model

“…The validity of the fitting method used here was confirmed in a parameter recovery study (see Supplementary Materials). It should be mentioned that more modern methods exist for optimizing the parameter values of sequential sampling models which can move through the correlated dimensions often seen in 2 It should be noted that more advanced methods of covering the parameter space, such as Latin hypercube sampling do exit (Evans, Holmes, & Trueblood, 2019).…”