Putting it all together: a unified account of word recognition and reaction-time distributions.

R. Ratcliff, P. Gomez, and G. McKoon (2004) suggested much of what goes on in lexical decision is attributable to decision processes and may not be particularly informative about word recognition. They proposed that lexical decision should be characterized by a decision process, taking the form of a drift-diffusion model (R. Ratcliff, 1978), that operates on the output of lexical model. The present article argues that the distinction between perception and decision making is unnecessary and that it is possible to give a unified account of both lexical processing and decision making. This claim is supported by formal arguments and reinforced by simulations showing how the Bayesian Reader model (D. Norris, 2006) can be extended to fit the data on reaction time distributions collected by Ratcliff, Gomez, and McKoon simply by adding extra sources of noise. The Bayesian Reader gives an integrated explanation of both word recognition and decision making, using fewer parameters than the diffusion model. It can be thought of as a Bayesian diffusion model, which subsumes Ratcliff's drift-diffusion model as a special case.

[1]  Tamara G. Kolda,et al.  Algorithm 856: APPSPACK 4.0: asynchronous parallel pattern search for derivative-free optimization , 2006, TOMS.

[2]  Tamara G. Kolda,et al.  APPSPACK 4.0: Asynchronous Parallel Pattern Search for Derivative-Free Optimization , 2004 .

[3]  David Marr,et al.  VISION A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information , 2009 .

[4]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[5]  S. Andrews,et al.  Distinguishing common and task-specific processes in word identification: a matter of some moment? , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  Michael C. Doyle,et al.  Effects of frequency on visual word recognition tasks: where are they? , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[7]  Kenneth I Forster,et al.  The rank hypothesis and lexical decision: a reply to Adelman and Brown (2008). , 2008, Psychological review.

[8]  David A. Balota,et al.  The Utility of Item-Level Analyses in Model Evaluation: A Reply to Seidenberg and Plaut , 1998 .

[9]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Learning new word meanings from context: a study of eye movements. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  Robert Eastaway,et al.  Why Do Buses Come in Threes: The Hidden Mathematics of Everyday Life , 1998 .

[11]  Gordon D A Brown,et al.  Modeling lexical decision: the form of frequency and diversity effects. , 2008, Psychological review.

[12]  Derek Besner,et al.  On the locus of the word frequency effect in visual word recognition , 1997 .

[13]  J. Andel Sequential Analysis , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[14]  Tamara G. Kolda,et al.  Revisiting Asynchronous Parallel Pattern Search for Nonlinear Optimization , 2005, SIAM J. Optim..

[15]  Donald Laming,et al.  Information theory of choice-reaction times , 1968 .

[16]  C. P. Whaley Word–nonword classification time. , 1978 .

[17]  Dennis Norris,et al.  The Bayesian reader: explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process. , 2006, Psychological review.

[18]  Dennis Norris,et al.  Perception as evidence accumulation and Bayesian inference: insights from masked priming. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[19]  R. Bogacz Optimal decision-making theories: linking neurobiology with behaviour , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[20]  D. Balota,et al.  Factors influencing word naming in younger and older adults. , 2000, Psychology and aging.

[21]  D. Norris,et al.  Shortlist B: a Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. , 2008, Psychological review.

[22]  R. Solomon,et al.  Visual duration threshold as a function of word-probability. , 1951, Journal of experimental psychology.

[23]  M Coltheart,et al.  DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. , 2001, Psychological review.

[24]  Gordon D. A. Brown,et al.  Contextual Diversity, Not Word Frequency, Determines Word-Naming and Lexical Decision Times , 2006, Psychological science.

[25]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  The remarkable inefficiency of word recognition , 2003, Nature.

[26]  M. Stone Models for choice-reaction time , 1960 .

[27]  S. Andrews The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts , 1997 .

[28]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  A Theory of Memory Retrieval. , 1978 .

[29]  A. Pollatsek,et al.  The effects of "neighborhood size" in reading and lexical decision. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[30]  Gordon D. A. Brown,et al.  Postscript : deviations from the predictions of serial search , 2008 .

[31]  W S Murray,et al.  Serial mechanisms in lexical access: the rank hypothesis. , 2004, Psychological review.

[32]  David A Balota,et al.  Additive and interactive effects on response time distributions in visual word recognition. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[33]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. , 2006, Psychological review.

[34]  Venugopal V. Veeravalli,et al.  A sequential procedure for multihypothesis testing , 1994, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[35]  Maarten Casteren,et al.  Match: A program to assist in matching the conditions of factorial experiments , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[36]  Michael J Cortese,et al.  Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[37]  Venugopal V. Veeravalli,et al.  Asymptotic efficiency of a sequential multihypothesis test , 1995, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[38]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[39]  D. Balota,et al.  Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  J Grainger,et al.  Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: a multiple read-out model. , 1996, Psychological review.

[41]  David A. Balota,et al.  Bringing Computational Models of Word Naming Down to the Item Level , 1997 .

[42]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  A Diffusion Model Account of Criterion Shifts in the Lexical Decision Task. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[43]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  A model for evidence accumulation in the lexical decision task , 2004, Cognitive Psychology.

[44]  D. F. Fisher,et al.  Eye movements : cognition and visual perception , 1982 .

[45]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  The Diffusion Decision Model: Theory and Data for Two-Choice Decision Tasks , 2008, Neural Computation.

[46]  Wigdor Bt,et al.  Psychology of aging. , 1967 .

[47]  Venugopal V. Veeravalli,et al.  Multihypothesis sequential probability ratio tests - Part II: Accurate asymptotic expansions for the expected sample size , 2000, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[48]  Manuel Perea,et al.  The effects of orthographic neighborhood in reading and laboratory word identification tasks: A review , 2000 .

[49]  D. Balota,et al.  Word frequency, repetition, and lexicality effects in word recognition tasks: beyond measures of central tendency. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[51]  Venugopal V. Veeravalli,et al.  Multihypothesis sequential probability ratio tests - Part I: Asymptotic optimality , 1999, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[52]  Michael J Cortese,et al.  Single- versus dual-process models of lexical decision performance: insights from response time distributional analysis. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[53]  Derek Besner,et al.  On the additive effects of stimulus quality and word frequency in lexical decision: evidence for opposing interactive influences revealed by RT distributional analyses. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[54]  K. Rayner,et al.  Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences , 1998, Memory & cognition.