A Phase Transition Model for the Speed-Accuracy Trade-Off in Response Time Experiments
Cognitive Science 35 (2):211-250 (2011)
| Abstract | Most models of response time (RT) in elementary cognitive tasks implicitly assume that the speed-accuracy trade-off is continuous: When payoffs or instructions gradually increase the level of speed stress, people are assumed to gradually sacrifice response accuracy in exchange for gradual increases in response speed. This trade-off presumably operates over the entire range from accurate but slow responding to fast but chance-level responding (i.e., guessing). In this article, we challenge the assumption of continuity and propose a phase transition model for RTs and accuracy. Analogous to the fast guess model (Ollman, 1966), our model postulates two modes of processing: a guess mode and a stimulus-controlled mode. From catastrophe theory, we derive two important predictions that allow us to test our model against the fast guess model and against the popular class of sequential sampling models. The first prediction—hysteresis in the transitions between guessing and stimulus-controlled behavior—was confirmed in an experiment that gradually changed the reward for speed versus accuracy. The second prediction—bimodal RT distributions—was confirmed in an experiment that required participants to respond in a way that is intermediate between guessing and accurate responding | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesGuy Hawkins, Scott D. Brown, Mark Steyvers & Eric-Jan Wagenmakers (2012). Context Effects in Multi-Alternative Decision Making: Empirical Data and a Bayesian Model. Cognitive Science 36 (3):498-516.
Craig Kunimoto, Jeff G. Miller & Harold Pashler (2001). Confidence and Accuracy of Near-Threshold Discrimination Responses. Consciousness and Cognition 10 (3):294-340.
P. A. Hancock & Willem B. Verwey (1997). Where in the World is the Speed/Accuracy Trade-Off? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (2):310-311.
P. Morasso & V. Sanguineti (1997). Movement Dynamics in Speed/Accuracy Trade-Off. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (2):319-319.
David E. Sherwood (1997). Speed/Accuracy Trade-Offs in Rapid Simultaneous and Sequential Actions: Evidence for Carryover Effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (2):320-320.
Arnold J. W. M. Thomassen & Ruud G. J. Meulenbroek (1997). Do We Need an Encompassing Speed/Accuracy Trade-Off Theory? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (2):322-323.
Willem P. De Jong & Gerard P. Van Galen (1997). Are Speed/Accuracy Trade-Offs Caused by Neuromotor Noise, or Not? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (2):306-307.
Reinoud J. Bootsma & Denis Mottet (1997). Dynamics of Trajectory Formation and Speed/Accuracy Trade-Offs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (2):303-304.
Réjean Plamondon & Adel M. Alimi (1997). Speed/Accuracy Trade-Offs in Target-Directed Movements. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (2):279-303.
George E. Stelmach & Jerry R. Thomas (1997). What's Different in Speed/Accuracy Trade-Offs in Young and Elderly Subjects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (2):321-321.
Charles E. Wright & David E. Meyer (1997). The Delta-Lambda Model: “Yes” for Simple Movement Trajectories; “No” for Speed/Accuracy Tradeoffs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (2):324-324.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-11-09Total downloads5 ( #160,483 of 549,625 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
