Acquisition of decision making criteria: Reward rate ultimately beats accuracy

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 73, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 640-657

  Balci, Fuat ^a   Simen, Patrick ^a   Niyogi, Ritwik ^a   Saxe, Andrew ^a   Hughes, Jessica A ^a   Holmes, Philip ^a,b   Cohen, Jonathan D ^a  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Princeton University   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Dot motion discrimination; Drift diffusion; Interval timing; Learning; Optimality; Reward rate maximization; Speed accuracy trade off; Two alternative forced choice

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; MOTIVATION; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME; REWARD; UNCERTAINTY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; DECISION MAKING; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MOTION PERCEPTION; MOTIVATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PRACTICE (PSYCHOLOGY); PROBABILITY LEARNING; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME; REWARD; UNCERTAINTY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79951954202     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-010-0049-7     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Balci, F., Freestone, D., & Gallistel, C. R. (2009). Risk assessment in man and mouse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 106, 2459-2463.
2. Balci, F., Meck, W., Moore, H., & Brunner, D. (2009). Timing deficits in aging and neuropathology. In J. L. Bizon & A. G. Woods (Eds.), Animal models of human cognitive aging (pp. 161-201). Totowa: Humana Press.
3. Balci, F., & Gallistel, C. R. (2006). Cross-domain transfer of quantitative discriminations: Is it all a matter of proportion? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 636-642.
4. Barnard, G. A. (1946). Sequential tests in industrial statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Supplement, 8, 1-26.
5. Bogacz, R., Hu, P. T., Holmes, P., & Cohen, J. D. (2010). Do humans produce the speed-accuracy tradeoff that maximizes reward rate? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(5), 863- 891.
6. Bogacz, R., Shea-Brown, E., Moehlis, J., Holmes, P., & Cohen, J. D. (2006). The physics of optimal decision making: A formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced choice tasks. Psychological Review, 113, 700-765.
7. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.
8. Dye, M., Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2009). Increasing speed of processing with action video games. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 312-326.
9. Dutilh, G., Vandekerckhove, J., Tuerlinckx, F., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2009). A diffusion model decomposition of the practice effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 1026-1036.
10. Gibbon, J. (1977). Scalar expectancy theory and Weber's law in animal timing. Psychological Review, 84, 279-325.
11. Gold, J. I., & Shadlen, M. N. (2002). Banburismus and the brain: Decoding the relationship between sensory stimuli, decisions and reward. Neuron, 36, 299-308.
12. Holmes, P., Shea-Brown, E., Moehlis, J., Bogacz, R., Gao, J., Aston-Jones, G., et al. (2005). Optimal decisions: From neural spikes, through stochastic differential equations to behavior. IEICE Transactions on Fundamentals of Electronics, Communications and Computer Science, E88A(10), 2496-2503.
13. Maddox, W. T., & Bohil, C. J. (1998). Base-rate and payoff effects inmultidimensional perceptual categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1459-1482.
14. Pachella, R. G. (1974). The interpretation of reaction time in informationprocessing research. In B. Kantowitz (Ed.), Human information processing: Tutorial in performance and recognition (pp. 41-82). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
15. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The videotoolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437- 442.
16. Rakitin, B. C., Hinton, S. C., Penney, T. B., Malapani, C., Gibbon, J., & Meck, W. H. (1998). Scalar expectancy theory and peakinterval timing in humans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 1-19.
17. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 83, 59-108.
18. Ratcliff, R. (2001). Diffusion and random walk processes. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 6, pp. 3668-3673). Oxford: Elsevier.
19. Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20, 873-922.
20. Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. N. (1998). Modeling response times for twochoice decisions. Psychological Science, 9, 347-356.
21. Ratcliff, R., Van Zandt, T., & McKoon, G. (1999). Connectionist and diffusion models of reaction time. Psychological Review, 106, 261-300.
22. Simen, P., Contreras, D., Buck, C., Hu, P., Holmes, P., & Cohen, J. D. (2009). Reward-rate optimization in two-alternative decision making: Empirical tests of theoretical predictions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1865-1897.
23. Starns, J. J., & Ratcliff, R. (2010). The effects of aging on the speedaccuracy compromise: Boundary optimality in the diffusion model. Psychology and Aging, 25, 377-390.
24. Vandekerckhove, J., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2008). Diffusion model analysis with MATLAB: A DMAT primer. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 61-72.
25. Wald, A. (1947). Sequential analysis. New York: Wiley.
26. Wald, A., & Wolfowitz, J. (1948). Optimum character of the sequential probability ratio test. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 19, 326-339.
27. Wearden, J. H. (1991). Human performance on an analogue of an interval bisection task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 43, 59-81.
28. Wickelgren, W. A. (1977). Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics. Acta Psychologica, 41, 67-85.
29. Zacksenhouse, M., Holmes, P., & Bogacz, R. (2010). Robust versus optimal strategies for two-alternative forced choice tasks. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 54, 230-245.