↓ Skip to main content

Perceptual decision making: drift-diffusion model is equivalent to a Bayesian model

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2014
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
128 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
444 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Perceptual decision making: drift-diffusion model is equivalent to a Bayesian model
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00102
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sebastian Bitzer, Hame Park, Felix Blankenburg, Stefan J. Kiebel

Abstract

Behavioral data obtained with perceptual decision making experiments are typically analyzed with the drift-diffusion model. This parsimonious model accumulates noisy pieces of evidence toward a decision bound to explain the accuracy and reaction times of subjects. Recently, Bayesian models have been proposed to explain how the brain extracts information from noisy input as typically presented in perceptual decision making tasks. It has long been known that the drift-diffusion model is tightly linked with such functional Bayesian models but the precise relationship of the two mechanisms was never made explicit. Using a Bayesian model, we derived the equations which relate parameter values between these models. In practice we show that this equivalence is useful when fitting multi-subject data. We further show that the Bayesian model suggests different decision variables which all predict equal responses and discuss how these may be discriminated based on neural correlates of accumulated evidence. In addition, we discuss extensions to the Bayesian model which would be difficult to derive for the drift-diffusion model. We suggest that these and other extensions may be highly useful for deriving new experiments which test novel hypotheses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 444 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 428 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 130 29%
Researcher 68 15%
Student > Master 60 14%
Student > Bachelor 38 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 7%
Other 57 13%
Unknown 62 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 132 30%
Neuroscience 90 20%
Computer Science 32 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 7%
Engineering 24 5%
Other 52 12%
Unknown 84 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 April 2021.
All research outputs
#3,209,415
of 26,267,662 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,460
of 7,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,936
of 322,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#38
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,267,662 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,813 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 322,631 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.