A diffusion model account of age differences in posterror slowing

Psychology and Aging

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 64-76

  Dutilh, Gilles ^a,b   Forstmann, Birte U ^a,c   Vandekerckhove, Joachim ^d   Wagenmakers, Eric Jan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Aging; Diffusion model; Post error slowing; Response times

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AGING; BAYES THEOREM; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; REACTION TIME; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84881256396     PISSN: 08827974     EISSN: 19391498     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0029875     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Band, G. P. H., & Kok, A. (2000). Age effects on response monitoring in a mental-rotation task. Biological Psychology, 51, 201-221.
2. Berger, J. O., & Sellke, T. (1987). Testing a point null hypothesis: The irreconcilability of p values and evidence. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 112-139.
3. Brinley, J. F. (1965). Cognitive sets, speed and accuracy of performance in the elderly. In A. T. Welford & J. E. Birren (Eds.), Behavior, aging and the nervous system (pp. 114-149). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
4. Britten, K. H., Shadlen, M. N., Newsome, W. T., & Movshon, J. A. (1992). The analysis of visual motion: A comparison of neuronal and psychophysical performance. The Journal of Neuroscience, 12, 4745-4765.
5. Cerella, J. (1985). Information processing rates in the elderly. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 67-83.
6. Danielmeier, C., & Ullsperger, M. (2011). Post-error adjustments. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 233. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00233
7. De Jong, R., Liang, C.-C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731-750.
8. Dutilh, G., Vandekerckhove, J., Forstmann, B. U., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). Testing theories of post-error slowing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 454-465.
9. Dutilh, G., van Ravenzwaaij, D., Nieuwenhuis, S., Van der Maas, H. L. J., Forstmann, B. U. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). How to measure post-error slowing: A confound and a simple solution. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56, 208-216.
10. Gelman, A., & Stern, H. (2006). The difference between "significant" and "not significant" is not itself statistically significant. The American Statistician, 60, 328-331.
11. Kamienkowski, J. E., Pashler, H., Dehaene, S., & Sigman, M. (2011). Effects of practice on task architecture: Combined evidence from interference experiments and random-walk models of decision making. Cognition, 119, 81-95.
12. Laming, D. (1968). Information theory of choice-reaction times. New York, NY: Academic Press.
13. Laming, D. (1979a). Autocorrelation of choice-reaction times. Acta Psychologica, 43, 381-412.
14. Laming, D. (1979b). Choice reaction performance following an error. Acta Psychologica, 43, 199-224.
15. Mata, R., & Nunes, L. (2010). When less is enough: Cognitive aging, information search, and decision quality in consumer choice. Psychology and Aging, 25, 289-298.
16. Nieuwenhuis, S., Forstmann, B. U., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2011). Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: A problem of significance. Nature Neuroscience, 14, 1105-1107.
17. Notebaert, W., Houtman, F., Opstal, F., Gevers, W., Fias, W., & Verguts, T. (2009). Post-error slowing: An orienting account. Cognition, 111, 275-279.
18. Pratte, M. S., Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., & Feng, C. (2010). Exploring the differences in distributional properties between Stroop and Simon effects using delta plots. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 2013-2025.
19. Rabbitt, P. (1979). How old and young subjects monitor and control responses for accuracy and speed. British Journal of Psychology, 70, 305-311.
20. Rabbitt, P., & Rodgers, B. (1977). What does a man do after an error? An analysis of response programming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 727-743.
21. Rabbitt, P., & Vyas, S. M. (1980). Selective anticipation for events in old age. Journal of Gerontology, 35, 913-919.
22. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59-108.
23. Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20, 873- 922.
24. Ratcliff, R., Spieler, D., & McKoon, G. (2000). Explicitly modeling the effects of aging on response time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 1-25.
25. Ratcliff, R., Thapar, J., & McKoon, G. (2004). A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging in the lexical-decision task. Psychology and Aging, 19, 278-289.
26. Ratcliff, R., Thapar, J., & McKoon, G. (2006a). Aging and individual differences in rapid two-choice decisions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 626-635.
27. Ratcliff, R., Thapar, J., & McKoon, G. (2006b). Aging, practice, and perceptual tasks: A diffusion model analysis. Psychology and Aging, 21, 353-371.
28. Ratcliff, R., Thapar, J., & McKoon, G. (2010). Individual differences, aging, and IQ in two-choice tasks. Cognitive Psychology, 60, 127-157.
29. Ratcliff, R., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2002). Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: Approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability. Psychological Bulletin & Review, 9, 438-481.
30. Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225-237.
31. Salthouse, T. A. (1979). Adult age and the speed-accuracy trade-off. Ergonomics, 22, 811-821.
32. Salthouse, T. A. (1985). A theory of cognitive aging. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
33. Salthouse, T. A. (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological Review, 103, 403-428.
34. Schmiedek, F., Lövd́en, M., & Lindenberger, U. (2009). On the relation of mean reaction time and intraindividual reaction time variability. Psychology and Aging, 24, 841-857.
35. Schmiedek, F., Oberauer, K., Wilhelm, O., Suss, H.-M., & Wittmann, W. W. (2007). Individual differences in components of reaction time distributions and their relations to working memory and intelligence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 414-429.
36. Sellke, T., Bayarri, M. J., & Berger, J. O. (2001). Calibration of p values for testing precise null hypotheses. The American Statistician, 55, 62- 71.
37. Smith, G. A., & Brewer, N. (1995). Slowness and age: Speed-accuracy mechanisms. Psychology and Aging, 10, 238-247.
38. Spaniol, J., Madden, D. J., & Voss, A. (2006). A diffusion model analysis of adult age differences in episodic and semantic long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 101-117.
39. Speckman, P. L., Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., & Pratte, M. S. (2008). Delta plots and coherent distribution ordering. The American Statistician, 62, 262-266.
40. Starns, J. J., & Ratcliff, R. (2010). The effects of aging on the speed- accuracy compromise: Boundary optimality in the diffusion model. Psychology and Aging, 25, 377-390.
41. Strayer, D. L., Wickens, C. D., & Braune, R. (1987). Adult age differences in the speed and capacity of information processing: II. An electrophysiological approach. Psychology and Aging, 2, 99-110.
42. Thapar, A., Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2003). A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging on letter discrimination. Psychology and Aging, 18, 415-429.
43. van Ravenzwaaij, D., Dutilh, G., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). A diffusion model decomposition of the effects of alcohol on perceptual decision making. Psychopharmacology, 219, 1017-1025.
44. van Ravenzwaaij, D., & Oberauer, K. (2009). How to use the diffusion model: Parameter recovery of three methods: EZ, fast-dm, and DMAT. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 463-473.
45. Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2009). Methodological and empirical developments for the Ratcliff diffusion model of response times and accuracy. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 641-671.
46. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Van der Maas, H. L. J., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2007). An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 3-22.
47. Wetzels, R., Matzke, D., Lee, M. D., Rouder, J. N., Iverson, G. J., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2011). Statistical evidence in experimental psychology: An empirical comparison using 855 t tests. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 291-298.
48. Wetzels, R., Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Jakab, E., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2009). How to quantify support for and against the null hypothesis: A flexible WinBUGS implementation of a default Bayesian t test. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 752-760.
49. White, C. N., Ratcliff, R., Vasey, M. W., & McKoon, G. (2010). Using diffusion models to understand clinical disorders. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 54, 39-52.
50. Wickelgren, W. A. (1977). Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics. Acta Psychologica, 41, 67-85.