↓ Skip to main content

Dynamic models of choice

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
52 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
128 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Dynamic models of choice
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, June 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13428-018-1067-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew Heathcote, Yi-Shin Lin, Angus Reynolds, Luke Strickland, Matthew Gretton, Dora Matzke

Abstract

Parameter estimation in evidence-accumulation models of choice response times is demanding of both the data and the user. We outline how to fit evidence-accumulation models using the flexible, open-source, R-based Dynamic Models of Choice (DMC) software. DMC provides a hands-on introduction to the Bayesian implementation of two popular evidence-accumulation models: the diffusion decision model (DDM) and the linear ballistic accumulator (LBA). It enables individual and hierarchical estimation, as well as assessment of the quality of a model's parameter estimates and descriptive accuracy. First, we introduce the basic concepts of Bayesian parameter estimation, guiding the reader through a simple DDM analysis. We then illustrate the challenges of fitting evidence-accumulation models using a set of LBA analyses. We emphasize best practices in modeling and discuss the importance of parameter- and model-recovery simulations, exploring the strengths and weaknesses of models in different experimental designs and parameter regions. We also demonstrate how DMC can be used to model complex cognitive processes, using as an example a race model of the stop-signal paradigm, which is used to measure inhibitory ability. We illustrate the flexibility of DMC by extending this model to account for mixtures of cognitive processes resulting from attention failures. We then guide the reader through the practical details of a Bayesian hierarchical analysis, from specifying priors to obtaining posterior distributions that encapsulate what has been learned from the data. Finally, we illustrate how the Bayesian approach leads to a quantitatively cumulative science, showing how to use posterior distributions to specify priors that can be used to inform the analysis of future experiments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 24%
Student > Master 14 13%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Lecturer 9 8%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 20 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 45 40%
Neuroscience 20 18%
Engineering 4 4%
Computer Science 3 3%
Decision Sciences 3 3%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 26 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,283,278
of 25,653,515 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#106
of 2,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,909
of 343,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#3
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,653,515 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.