“…Although several different variants of EAMs exist, most are able to provide a close quantitative fit to these choice response time distributions observed in a range of different paradigms, and have been shown to qualitatively capture a range of different choice and response time benchmarks (Ratcliff, 1978;Ratcliff & Rouder, 1998;Usher & McClelland, 2001;Ratcliff & Tuerlinckx, 2002;Verdonck & Tuerlinckx, 2014). These models have also served as the basis for extensions to explain the choice response time distributions in more complex decisions, such as categorization (Nosofsky & Palmeri, 1997;Nosofsky, Little, Donkin, & Fific, 2011), multi-attribute choice (Roe, Busemeyer, & Townsend, 2001;Usher & McClelland, 2004;Tsetsos, Usher, & Chater, 2010;Trueblood, Brown, & Heathcote, 2014), absolute identification , choice confidence (Van Zandt & Maldonado-Molina, 2004;Ratcliff & Starns, 2009;Pleskac & Busemeyer, 2010), and stop signal paradigms (Matzke, Love, & Heathcote, 2017;Matzke, Hughes, Badcock, Michie, & Heathcote, 2017). Overall, EAMs are one of the most successful frameworks in the history of cognitive psychology, providing an accurate account of data from a range of rapid decision-making tasks, and serving as a basis for extensions to more complex decisions.…”