Response time (RT) is an oft-reported behavioral measure in psychological and neurocognitive experiments, but the high level of observed trial-to-trial variability in this measure has often limited its usefulness. Here, we combine computational modeling and psychophysics to examine the hypothesis that fluctuations in this noisy measure reflect dynamic computations in human statistical learning and corresponding cognitive adjustments. We present data from the stop-signal task (SST), in which subjects respond to a go stimulus on each trial, unless instructed not to by a subsequent, infrequently presented stop signal. We model across-trial learning of stop signal frequency, P(stop), and stop-signal onset time, SSD (stop-signal delay), with a Bayesian hidden Markov model, and within-trial decision-making with an optimal stochastic control model. The combined model predicts that RT should increase with both expected P(stop) and SSD. The human behavioral data (n = 20) bear out this prediction, showing P(stop) and SSD both to be significant, independent predictors of RT, with P(stop) being a more prominent predictor in 75% of the subjects, and SSD being more prominent in the remaining 25%. The results demonstrate that humans indeed readily internalize environmental statistics and adjust their cognitive/behavioral strategy accordingly, and that subtle patterns in RT variability can serve as a valuable tool for validating models of statistical learning and decision-making. More broadly, the modeling tools presented in this work can be generalized to a large body of behavioral paradigms, in order to extract insights about cognitive and neural processing from apparently quite noisy behavioral measures. We also discuss how this behaviorally validated model can then be used to conduct model-based analysis of neural data, in order to help identify specific brain areas for representing and encoding key computational quantities in learning and decision-making.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 August 2015.
All research outputs
#14,693,880
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,886
of 29,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,805
of 264,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#352
of 558 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,780 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 264,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 558 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
