Speed-accuracy tradeoff under response deadlines

Title:
Speed-accuracy tradeoff under response deadlines
Authors:
Karsilar, Hakan; Simen, Patrick; Papadakis, Samantha; Balci, Fuat
Abstract:
Perceptual decision making has been successfully modeled as a process of evidence accumulation up to a threshold. In order to maximize the rewards earned for correct responses in tasks with response deadlines, participants should collapse decision thresholds dynamically during each trial so that a decision is reached before the deadline. This strategy ensures on-time responding, though at the cost of reduced accuracy, since slower decisions are based on lower thresholds and less net evidence later in a trial (compared to a constant threshold). Frazier and Yu (2008) showed that the normative rate of threshold reduction depends on deadline delays and on participants' uncertainty about these delays. Participants should start collapsing decision thresholds earlier when making decisions under shorter deadlines (for a given level of timing uncertainty) or when timing uncertainty is higher (for a given deadline). We tested these predictions using human participants in a random dot motion discrimination task. Each participant was tested in free-response, short deadline (800 ms), and long deadline conditions (1000 ms). Contrary to optimal-performance predictions, the resulting empirical function relating accuracy to response time (RT) in deadline conditions did not decline to chance level near the deadline; nor did the slight decline we typically observed relate to measures of endogenous timing uncertainty. Further, although this function did decline slightly with increasing RT, the decline was explainable by the best-fitting parameterization of Ratcliff's diffusion model (Ratcliff, 1978), whose parameters are constant within trials. Our findings suggest that at the very least, typical decision durations are too short for participants to adapt decision parameters within trials.
Citation:
Karsilar, H., P. Simen, S. Papadakis, and F. Balci. 2014. "Speed-accuracy tradeoff under response deadlines." Frontiers in Decision Neuroscience 8: 248. https://www.simenlab.org/FinalPublications/Goldfarb2014_fnins-08-00148.pdf
DATE ISSUED:
2014
Department:
Neuroscience
Type:
Article
PUBLISHED VERSION:
10.3389/fnins.2014.00248
Notes:
Research topic: Speed-accuracy tradeoff
PERMANENT LINK:
http://hdl.handle.net/11282/566767

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorKarsilar, Hakanen
dc.contributor.authorSimen, Patricken
dc.contributor.authorPapadakis, Samanthaen
dc.contributor.authorBalci, Fuaten
dc.date.accessioned2015-08-13T10:33:36Zen
dc.date.available2015-08-13T10:33:36Zen
dc.date.issued2014en
dc.identifier.citationKarsilar, H., P. Simen, S. Papadakis, and F. Balci. 2014. "Speed-accuracy tradeoff under response deadlines." Frontiers in Decision Neuroscience 8: 248. https://www.simenlab.org/FinalPublications/Goldfarb2014_fnins-08-00148.pdfen
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11282/566767en
dc.description.abstractPerceptual decision making has been successfully modeled as a process of evidence accumulation up to a threshold. In order to maximize the rewards earned for correct responses in tasks with response deadlines, participants should collapse decision thresholds dynamically during each trial so that a decision is reached before the deadline. This strategy ensures on-time responding, though at the cost of reduced accuracy, since slower decisions are based on lower thresholds and less net evidence later in a trial (compared to a constant threshold). Frazier and Yu (2008) showed that the normative rate of threshold reduction depends on deadline delays and on participants' uncertainty about these delays. Participants should start collapsing decision thresholds earlier when making decisions under shorter deadlines (for a given level of timing uncertainty) or when timing uncertainty is higher (for a given deadline). We tested these predictions using human participants in a random dot motion discrimination task. Each participant was tested in free-response, short deadline (800 ms), and long deadline conditions (1000 ms). Contrary to optimal-performance predictions, the resulting empirical function relating accuracy to response time (RT) in deadline conditions did not decline to chance level near the deadline; nor did the slight decline we typically observed relate to measures of endogenous timing uncertainty. Further, although this function did decline slightly with increasing RT, the decline was explainable by the best-fitting parameterization of Ratcliff's diffusion model (Ratcliff, 1978), whose parameters are constant within trials. Our findings suggest that at the very least, typical decision durations are too short for participants to adapt decision parameters within trials.en
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fnins.2014.00248en
dc.subject.departmentNeuroscienceen
dc.titleSpeed-accuracy tradeoff under response deadlinesen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.description.notesResearch topic: Speed-accuracy tradeoffen
dc.identifier.journalFrontiers in Decision Neuroscienceen
dc.subject.keywordResponse deadlinesen
dc.subject.keywordOptimalityen
dc.subject.keywordSpeed-accuracyen
dc.subject.keywordTiming uncertaintyen
dc.subject.keywordDecision makingen
dc.identifier.volume8en
dc.identifier.startpage248en
All Items in The Five Colleges of Ohio Digital Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.