Full reaction time distributions reveal the complexity of neural decision‐making

Measurement of the stochastic distribution of reaction time or latency has become a popular technique that can potentially provide precise, quantitative information about the underlying neural decision mechanisms. However, this approach typically requires data from large numbers of individual trials, in order to enable reliable distinctions to be made between different models of decision. When data are not plentiful, an approximation to full distributional information can be provided by using a small number of quantiles instead of full distributions – often, just five are used. Although this can often be adequate when the proposed underlying model is a relatively simple one, we show here that, with more complex tasks, and correspondingly extended models, this kind of approximation can often be extremely misleading, and may hide important features of the underlying mechanisms that only full distributional analysis can reveal.

[1]  R. Ratcliff.  A diffusion model account of response time and accuracy in a brightness discrimination task: Fitting real data and failing to fit fake but plausible data , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[2]  R. Carpenter,et al.  The influence of urgency on decision time , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[3]  P. Glimcher.  The neurobiology of visual-saccadic decision making. , 2003, Annual review of neuroscience.

[4]  T. Zandt,et al.  A comparison of two response time models applied to perceptual matching , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[5]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions , 2004, Trends in Neurosciences.

[6]  Jeremy M Wolfe,et al.  What are the shapes of response time distributions in visual search? , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Roger H. S. Carpenter,et al.  Saccadic latency with unexpected distraction , 2010 .

[8]  Andrew Heathcote,et al.  An integrated model of choices and response times in absolute identification. , 2008, Psychological review.

[9]  Yves Lacouture,et al.  Choice and response time processes in the identification and categorization of unidimensional stimuli , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  J. Gold,et al.  The Neurophysiology of Decision Making as a Window on Cognition , 2003 .

[11]  J. Schall.  On building a bridge between brain and behavior. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[12]  A. T. Welford,et al.  Evidence of a Single-Channel Decision Mechanism Limiting Performance in a Serial Reaction Task* , 1959 .

[13]  J. Schall.  Neural correlates of decision processes: neural and mental chronometry , 2003, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[14]  R. Carpenter,et al.  Countermanding saccades in humans , 1999, Vision Research.

[15]  R. Audley,et al.  SOME ALTERNATIVE STOCHASTIC MODELS OF CHOICE1 , 1965 .

[16]  J. Gold,et al.  The neural basis of decision making. , 2007, Annual review of neuroscience.

[17]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  A model of the go/no-go task. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[18]  Evan M. Palmer,et al.  Reaction time distributions constrain models of visual search , 2010, Vision Research.

[19]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation , 2008, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  K. R. Ridderinkhof,et al.  Striatum and pre-SMA facilitate decision-making under time pressure , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  R. H. S. Carpenter,et al.  Neural computation of log likelihood in control of saccadic eye movements , 1995, Nature.

[22]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. , 2004, Psychological review.