Paradoxical Evidence Integration in Rapid Decision Processes

Rüter, Johannes; Marcille, Nicolas; Sprekeler, Henning; Gerstner, Wulfram; Herzog, Michael H.

doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002382

Cited by 18 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a recent study, we investigated decision making with the one vernier fusion paradigm, i.e., a no compelled response paradigm. We found that accuracy and reactions times were not easily be explained with classical one-stage models [24]. For this reason, we proposed a two-stage model in which evidence integration and the race-to-threshold are not one and the same process in accordance with previous findings [25]–[27].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

The Silent Period of Evidence Integration in Fast Decision Making

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a typical experiment on decision making, one out of two possible stimuli is displayed and observers decide which one was presented. Recently, Stanford and colleagues (2010) introduced a new variant of this classical one-stimulus presentation paradigm to investigate the speed of decision making. They found evidence for “perceptual decision making in less than 30 ms”. Here, we extended this one-stimulus compelled-response paradigm to a two-stimulus compelled-response paradigm in which a vernier was followed immediately by a second vernier with opposite offset direction. The two verniers and their offsets fuse. Only one vernier is perceived. When observers are asked to indicate the offset direction of the fused vernier, the offset of the second vernier dominates perception. Even for long vernier durations, the second vernier dominates decisions indicating that decision making can take substantial time. In accordance with previous studies, we suggest that our results are best explained with a two-stage model of decision making where a leaky evidence integration stage precedes a race-to-threshold process.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

The Silent Period of Evidence Integration in Fast Decision Making

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, information persistence in a buffer stage might explain why Prime 2 remains dominant even when Prime 1 has a head start long enough to provoke a high rate of response errors under conditions of speeded instead of delayed responding. Such a twostage model was recently proposed for decision making (Rüter, Marcille, Sprekeler, Gerstner, & Herzog, 2012;Rüter, Sprekeler, Gerstner, & Herzog, 2013;Scharnowski, Hermens, Kammer, Ogmen, & Herzog, 2007) and is supported by transcranial magnetic stimulation experiments, which show that vernier fusion takes up to 400 ms (Rüter, Kammer, & Herzog, 2010;Scharnowski et al, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Two primes priming: Does feature integration occur before response activation?

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responses to a target can be sped up or slowed down by a congruent or incongruent prime, respectively. Even though presentations are rapid, the prime and the target are thought to activate motor responses in strict sequence, with prime activation preceding target activation. In feature fusion, the opposite seems to be the case. For example, a vernier offset to the left is immediately followed by a vernier offset to the right at the same location. The two verniers are not perceived as two elements in sequence but as a single, aligned vernier. Here, we ask the question as to how features are integrated: before or after motor activation? We presented two vernier primes with opposite offset directions preceding a single vernier target. No priming effect occurred when the vernier primes were presented at the same location, indicating that verniers integrate before motor activation. There was also no priming effect when the primes were presented simultaneously at different locations, indicating that there is an integration stage different from the perceptual fusion stage. When the second prime is delayed, it determines priming, even for very long delays. To explain these long integration times, we argue that there is a buffer preceding motor activation.

show abstract

“…() and Rüter et al. () compared one‐stage and two‐stage models of conflict and selection. In one‐stage models the perceptual evidence feeds directly into those units that compete for selection, whereas in two‐stage models competing units receive perceptual evidence only after pre‐processing (e.g., after evidence accumulation has terminated).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The studies of Rüter et al. () and Purcell et al. () both indicate that two‐stage models are more appropriate than one‐stage models.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms of Reference Frame Selection in Spatial Term Use: Computational and Empirical Studies

Schultheis¹,

Carlson

2015

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have shown that multiple reference frames are available and compete for selection during the use of spatial terms such as "above." However, the mechanisms that underlie the selection process are poorly understood. In the current paper we present two experiments and a comparison of three computational models of selection to shed further light on the nature of reference frame selection. The three models are drawn from different areas of human cognition, and we assess whether they may be applied to a reference frame selection by examining their ability to account for both existing and new empirical data comprising acceptance rates, response times, and response time distributions. These three models are the competitive shunting model (Schultheis, ), the leaky competing accumulator (LCA) model (Usher & McClelland, ), and a lexical selection model (Howard, Nickels, Coltheart, & Cole-Virtue, ). Model simulations show that only the LCA model satisfactorily accounts for the empirical observations. The key properties of this model that seem to drive its success are its bounded linear activation function, its number and type of processing stages, and its use of decay. Uncovering these critical properties has important implications for our understanding not only of spatial term use, in particular, but also of conflict and selection in human cognition more generally.

show abstract

Paradoxical Evidence Integration in Rapid Decision Processes

Cited by 18 publications

References 58 publications

The Silent Period of Evidence Integration in Fast Decision Making

The Silent Period of Evidence Integration in Fast Decision Making

Two primes priming: Does feature integration occur before response activation?

Mechanisms of Reference Frame Selection in Spatial Term Use: Computational and Empirical Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About