Comparing reaction time sequences from human participants and computational models

This paper addresses the question how to compare reaction times computed by a computational model of speech comprehension with observed reaction times by participants. The question is based on the observation that reaction time sequences substantially differ per participant, which raises the issue of how exactly the model is to be assessed. Part of the variation in reaction time sequences is caused by the so-called local speed: the current reaction time correlates to some extent with a number of previous reaction times, due to slowly varying variations in attention, fatigue etc. This paper proposes a method, based on time series analysis, to filter the observed reaction times in order to separate the local speed effects. Results show that after such filtering the between-participant correlations increase as well as the average correlation between participant and model increases. The presented technique provides insights into relevant aspects that are to be taken into account when comparing reaction time sequences. Index Terms: reaction times, local speed, participant-model comparison, computational modeling, spoken word recognition

[1]  G. V. van Orden,et al.  Human cognition and 1/f scaling. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[2]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Estimation and interpretation of 1/fα noise in human cognition , 2004 .

[3]  G. V. van Orden,et al.  Self-organization of cognitive performance. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[4]  Mirjam Ernestus,et al.  How robust are exemplar effects in word comprehension , 2014 .

[5]  Christopher F. Chabris,et al.  General Cognitive Ability and the Psychological Refractory Period , 2013, Psychological science.

[6]  R. Ratcliff Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[7]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Native Listening: Language Experience and the Recognition of Spoken Words , 2012 .

[8]  A Heathcote,et al.  The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology Response-time Dynamics: Evidence for Linear and Low-dimensional Nonlinear Structure in Human Choice Sequences , 2022 .

[9]  D E Kieras,et al.  A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. , 1997, Psychological review.

[10]  Louis ten Bosch,et al.  How Should a Speech Recognizer Work? , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  Thomas L. Thornton,et al.  Provenance of correlations in psychological data , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  Andrew Heathcote,et al.  Getting more from accuracy and response time data: Methods for fitting the linear ballistic accumulator , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[13]  Mirjam Ernestus,et al.  The comprehension of acoustically reduced morphologically complex words: The roles of deletion, duration, and frequency of occurence , 2007 .

[14]  Louis ten Bosch,et al.  Towards an end-to-end computational model of speech comprehension: simulating a lexical decision task , 2013, INTERSPEECH.

[15]  R. Whelan Effective Analysis of Reaction Time Data , 2008 .

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

[17]  David M. Raup,et al.  How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality , 1997 .

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

[19]  Nelleke Oostdijk,et al.  The Spoken Dutch Corpus Project , 1999 .