↓ Skip to main content

Early evidence affects later decisions: Why evidence accumulation is required to explain response time data

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

peer_reviews
1 peer review site
weibo
2 weibo users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Early evidence affects later decisions: Why evidence accumulation is required to explain response time data
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, January 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13423-013-0551-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasper Winkel, Max C. Keuken, Leendert van Maanen, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Birte U. Forstmann

Abstract

Models of decision making differ in how they treat early evidence as it recedes in time. Standard models, such as the drift diffusion model, assume that evidence is gradually accumulated until it reaches a boundary and a decision is initiated. One recent model, the urgency gating model, has proposed that decision making does not require the accumulation of evidence at all. Instead, accumulation could be replaced by a simple urgency factor that scales with time. To distinguish between these fundamentally different accounts of decision making, we performed an experiment in which we manipulated the presence, duration, and valence of early evidence. We simulated the associated response time and error rate predictions from the drift diffusion model and the urgency gating model, fitting the models to the empirical data. The drift diffusion model predicted that variations in the evidence presented early in the trial would affect decisions later in that same trial. The urgency gating model predicted that none of these variations would have any effect. The behavioral data showed clear effects of early evidence on the subsequent decisions, in a manner consistent with the drift diffusion model. Our results cannot be explained by the urgency gating model, and they provide support for an evidence accumulation account of perceptual decision making.

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 %
Germany 3 3%
United States 3 3%
France 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 102 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 28%
Researcher 23 21%
Student > Master 21 19%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 11 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 52 46%
Neuroscience 19 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 16 14%