↓ Skip to main content

A comparative study of drift diffusion and linear ballistic accumulator models in a reward maximization perceptual choice task

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
A comparative study of drift diffusion and linear ballistic accumulator models in a reward maximization perceptual choice task
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2014.00148
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie Goldfarb, Naomi E. Leonard, Patrick Simen, Carlos H. Caicedo-Núñez, Philip Holmes

Abstract

We present new findings that distinguish drift diffusion models (DDMs) from the linear ballistic accumulator (LBA) model as descriptions of human behavior in a two-alternative forced-choice reward maximization (Rmax) task. Previous comparisons have not considered Rmax tasks, and differences identified between the models' predictions have centered on practice effects. Unlike the parameter-free optimal performance curves of the pure DDM, the extended DDM and LBA predict families of curves depending on their additional parameters, and those of the LBA show significant differences from the DDMs, especially for poorly discriminable stimuli that incur high error rates. Moreover, fits to behavior reveal that the LBA and DDM provide different interpretations of behavior as stimulus discriminability increases. Trends for threshold setting (caution) in the DDMs are consistent between fits, while in the corresponding LBA fits, thresholds interact with distributions of starting points in a complex manner that depends upon parameter constraints. Our results suggest that reinterpretation of LBA parameters may be necessary in modeling the Rmax paradigm.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
United States 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 63 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 21%
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 35%
Neuroscience 16 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Physics and Astronomy 3 5%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 11 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 August 2014.
All research outputs
#17,724,033
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#7,631
of 9,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,274
of 230,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#96
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,874 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 230,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.