title: Modeling confidence judgments, response times, and multiple choices in decision making: recognition memory and motion discrimination.
abstract: Confidence in judgments is a fundamental aspect of decision making, and tasks that collect confidence judgments are an instantiation of multiple-choice decision making. We present a model for confidence judgments in recognition memory tasks that uses a multiple-choice diffusion decision process with separate accumulators of evidence for the different confidence choices. The accumulator that first reaches its decision boundary determines which choice is made. Five algorithms for accumulating evidence were compared, and one of them produced proportions of responses for each of the choices and full response time distributions for each choice that closely matched empirical data. With this algorithm, an increase in the evidence in one accumulator is accompanied by a decrease in the others so that the total amount of evidence in the system is constant. Application of the model to the data from an earlier experiment (Ratcliff, McKoon, & Tindall, 1994) uncovered a relationship between the shapes of z-transformed receiver operating characteristics and the behavior of response time distributions. Both are explained in the model by the behavior of the decision boundaries. For generality, we also applied the decision model to a 3-choice motion discrimination task and found it accounted for data better than a competing class of models. The confidence model presents a coherent account of confidence judgments and response time that cannot be explained with currently popular signal detection theory analyses or dual-process models of recognition.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, 1835 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. ratcliff.22@osu.edu
authors.forename: Roger
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Ratcliff
authors.forename: Jeffrey J
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: Starns
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000465:Algorithms; D002755:Choice Behavior / Q000502:physiology; D003657:Decision Making / Q000502:physiology*; D004192:Discrimination, Psychological / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D008960:Models, Psychological; D009039:Motion Perception / Q000502:physiology; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology; D021641:Recognition, Psychology / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2007 Jun;11(6):251-7
references.pmid: 17481940
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2001 Apr;108(2):370-92
references.pmid: 11381834
references.citation: Science. 2009 May 8;324(5928):759-64
references.pmid: 19423820
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2007 Jan;114(1):152-76
references.pmid: 17227185
references.citation: Front Neurosci. 2010 Nov 25;4:184
references.pmid: 21152262
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 May;26(3):582-600
references.pmid: 10855419
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2008 Dec;57(4):335-84
references.pmid: 18485339
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1996 Oct;103(4):603-49
references.pmid: 8888649
references.citation: Neural Comput. 2007 Feb;19(2):442-77
references.pmid: 17206871
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1997 Nov;25(6):747-63
references.pmid: 9421560
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2006 Dec;33(4):1188-93
references.pmid: 17029986
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Jun;19(3):363-94
references.pmid: 22441957
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2008 Oct 15;28(42):10541-8
references.pmid: 18923030
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1992 Jul;99(3):518-35
references.pmid: 1502275
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 2010 Nov;104(5):2359-74
references.pmid: 20810685
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008 Aug;9(8):613-25
references.pmid: 18641668
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994 Jul;20(4):763-85
references.pmid: 8064246
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1982 Jan;89(1):60-94
references.pmid: 7058229
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2009 Jan;116(1):59-83
references.pmid: 19159148
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2004;42(8):1088-106
references.pmid: 15093148
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2006 Nov 22;26(47):12186-97
references.pmid: 17122043
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 Nov;29(6):1210-30
references.pmid: 14622056
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2007 Nov 7;27(45):12190-7
references.pmid: 17989285
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Feb;13(1):99-105
references.pmid: 16724775
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 2001 Oct;86(4):1916-36
references.pmid: 11600651
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994 Nov;20(6):1341-54
references.pmid: 7983467
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2010 Jul;117(3):864-901
references.pmid: 20658856
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2006 Feb 15;29(4):1150-60
references.pmid: 16303318
references.citation: Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1966 May;19(1):15-32
references.pmid: 5939142
references.citation: Neuron. 2008 Dec 26;60(6):1142-52
references.pmid: 19109917
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 May 25;107(21):9849-54
references.pmid: 20457911
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2008 Apr 23;28(17):4435-45
references.pmid: 18434522
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):438-81
references.pmid: 12412886
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Jun;15(3):465-94
references.pmid: 18567246
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2004 Jul;111(3):757-69
references.pmid: 15250782
references.citation: Science. 1996 Oct 18;274(5286):427-30
references.pmid: 8832893
references.citation: Nature. 2008 Sep 11;455(7210):227-31
references.pmid: 18690210
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2006 Oct;113(4):700-65
references.pmid: 17014301
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1995 Dec;124(4):352-74
references.pmid: 8530910
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2008 Jul;115(3):577-600
references.pmid: 18729592
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2011 Apr;118(2):280-315
references.pmid: 21355662
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2004 Apr;111(2):333-67
references.pmid: 15065913
references.citation: Neural Netw. 2006 Oct;19(8):981-1012
references.pmid: 16952441
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2012 Feb;64(1-2):1-34
references.pmid: 22079870
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Jun;24(3):929-45
references.pmid: 9627426
references.citation: Science. 2010 Sep 17;329(5998):1541-3
references.pmid: 20847276
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007 Nov;8(11):872-83
references.pmid: 17948032
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Oct;15(5):889-905
references.pmid: 18926981
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2000 Nov;12(6):913-23
references.pmid: 11177413
references.citation: Neural Comput. 2008 Apr;20(4):873-922
references.pmid: 18085991
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2010 May;60(3):127-57
references.pmid: 19962693
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1997 Apr;104(2):319-43
references.pmid: 9127584
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2006 May;9(5):690-6
references.pmid: 16617339
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2001 Jul;108(3):550-92
references.pmid: 11488378
references.citation: J Math Psychol. 2006 Aug;50(4):402-410
references.pmid: 18574521
references.citation: Annu Rev Neurosci. 2007;30:123-52
references.pmid: 17417939
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010 Jan;72(1):246-73
references.pmid: 20045893
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1999 Apr;106(2):261-300
references.pmid: 10378014
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 2007 Feb;97(2):1756-74
references.pmid: 17122324