Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T02:51:08.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Models for the Statistics and Mechanisms of Response Speed and Accuracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Michael J. Wenger
Michael J. Wenger*
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Michael J. Wenger, Department of Psychology, 620 Moore Building, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA. E-mail: mjw19@psu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Van Breukelen offers a promising method for modeling both response speed and response accuracy. However, the underlying conception of both dependent measures is somewhat flawed, leading the author to conclude that the approach possesses limitations that, under revised assumptions, may not hold. The central misconception, and a set of related misconceptions, is addressed, and it is suggested that this approach holds a good deal of promise for application in the perceptual and cognitive sciences.

Keywords

time limit testsconditional accuracy functionspeed-accuracy tradeoffconditional logistic regressionCox regressionmixed regressionmultilevel analysislatent traitmental rotationmathematical modelsperceptioncognitionspeed-accuracy relations
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 70 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 383 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashby, F.G., & Lee, W.W. (1993). Perceptual variability as a fundamental axoim of perceptual science. In Masin, S.C. (Eds.), Foundations of Perceptual Theory (pp. 369–399). Amsterdam: Elsevie.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, F.G., & Townsend, J.T. (1986). Varieties of perceptual independence. Psychological Review, 93, 154–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batchelder, W.H., & Riefer, D.M. (1999). Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial processing tree modeling. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisconti, T.L., Bergeman, C.S., & Boker, S.M. (2004). Emotion regulation in recently bereaved widows: A dynamical systems approach. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 59, 158–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colonius, H. (1995). The instance theory of automaticity: Why the Weibull. Psychological Review, 102, 744–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeCarlo, L.T. (1998). Signal detection theory and generalized linear models. Psychological Methods, 3, 186–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeCarlo, L.T. (2002a). A latent class extension of signal detection theory, with applications. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 37, 423–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeCarlo, L.T. (2002b). Signal detection theory with finite mixture distributions: Theoretical developments with applications to recognition memory. Psychological Review, 109, 710–721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dosher, B.A. (1979). Empirical approaches to information processing: Speed-accuracy tradeoff functions or reaction time—a reply. Acta Psychologica, 43, 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dosher, B.A. (1984). Degree of learning and retrieval speed: Study time and multiple exposures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 541–574.Google Scholar
Dzhafarov, E.N. (1992). The structure of simple reaction time to step-function signals. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 36, 235–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzhafarov, E.N. (1993). Grice-representability of response time distribution families. Psychometrika, 58, 281–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzhafarov, E.N. (1997). Process representations and decompositions of response times. In Marley, A.A.J. (Eds.), Choice, Decision, and Measurement: Essays in Honor of R. Duncan Luce (pp. 255–277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fisher, D.L., & Goldstein, W.M. (1983). Stochastic PERT networks as models of cognition: Derivation of the mean, variance, and distribution of reaction time using order-of-processing diagrams. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 27, 121–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D.M., & Swets, J.A. (1966). Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gronlund, S.D., & Ratcliff, R. (1989). Time course of item and associative information: Implications for global memory models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 846–858.Google ScholarPubMed
Hintzman, D.L., & Curran, T. (1994). Retrieval dynamics of recognition and frequency judgments: Evidence for separate processes of familiarity and recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, X. (2001). Extending general processing tree models to analyze reaction time experiments. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 603–634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kantowitz, B.H. (1978). On the accuracy of speed-accuracy tradeoff. Acta Psychologica, 42, 79–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, G.D. (1992). Shapes of reaction time distributions and shapes of learning curves: A test of the instance theory of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 883–914.Google ScholarPubMed
Luce, R.D. (1986). Reaction times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Macmillan, N.A., & Creelman, C.D. (2005). Detection Theory: A User’s Guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Maxwell, S.E., & Delaney, H.D. (2004). Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A M0odel Comparison Perspective (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pachella, R. (1974). The interpretation of reaction time in information processing research. In Kantowitz, B.H. (Eds.), Human Information Processing: Tutorials in Performance and Cognition (pp. 41–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, S., & Sternberg, S. (1993). The meaning of additive reaction time effects: Tests of three alternatives. In Meyer, D.E., & Kornblum, S. (Eds.), Attention and Performance XIV (pp. 611–654). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweickert, R. (1982). The bias of an estimate of coupled slack in stochastic PERT networks. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 26, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweickert, R. (1983). Latent network theory: Scheduling of processes in sentence verification and the Stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 353–383.Google ScholarPubMed
Schweickert, R., & Townsend, J.T. (1989). A trichotomy method: Interactions of factors prolonging sequential and concurrent mental processes in stochastic PERT networks. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 33, 328–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiffrin, R.M., & Steyvers, M. (1997). A model for recognition memory: REM—retrieving effectively from memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P.L., & Ratcliff, R. (2004). Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions. Trends in Neuroscience, 27, 161–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spieler, D.H., & Balota, D.A. (1997). Bringing computational models of word naming down to the item level. Psychological Science, 8, 411–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spieler, D.H., Balota, D.A., & Faust, M.E. (2000). Levels of selective attention revealed through analyses of reaction time distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 506–526.Google Scholar
Sternberg, S. (1966). High-speed scanning in human memory. Science, 153, 652–654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sternberg, S. (1969). Memory scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction time experiments. American Scientist, 4, 421–457.Google Scholar
Thomas, R.D. (2001). Characterizing perceptual interactions in face identification using multidimensional signal detection theory. In Wenger, M.J., & Townsend, J.T. (Eds.), Computational, Geometric, and Process Perspectives on Facial Cognition: Contests and Challenges (pp. 193–228). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Townsend, J.T. (1974). Issues and models concerning the processing of a finite number of inputs. In Kantowitz, B.H. (Eds.), Human Information Processing: Tutorials in Performance and Cognition (pp. 133–168). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Townsend, J.T., & Ashby, F.G. (1983). Stochastic Modeling of Elementary Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.Google Scholar
Townsend, J.T., & Nozawa, G. (1995). On the spatio-temporal properties of elementary perception: An investigation of parallel, serial, and coactive theories. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39, 321–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, J.T., & Schweickert, R. (1989). Toward the trichotomy method: Laying the foundation of stochastic mental networks. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 33, 309–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, J.T., & Wenger, M.J. (2004). The serial-parallel dilemma: A case study in a linkage of theory and method. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 391–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, J.T., & Wenger, M.J. (2004). A theory of interactive parallel processing: New capacity measures and predictions for a response time inequality series. Psychological Review, 111, 1003–1035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Townsend, J.T., Hu, G.G., & Kadlec, H. (1988). Feature sensitivity, bias, and interdependencies as a function of intensity and payoffs. Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 575–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weibull, W. (1951). A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 18, 293–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, M.J., & Ingvalson, E.M. (2002). A decisional component of holistic encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 872–892.Google ScholarPubMed
Wenger, M.J., & Ingvalson, E.M. (2003). Preserving informational separability and violating decisional separability in facial perception and recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1106–1118.Google ScholarPubMed
Wickelgren, W.A. (1977). Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics. Acta Psychologica, 41, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Zandt, T. (2000). How to fit a response time distribution. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 424–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Zandt, T. (2002). Analysis of response time distributions. In Wixted, J.T. (Eds.), Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology: Methodology in Experimental Psychology, vol. 4 (pp. 461–516). (3rd ed.). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar