title: Modeling individual differences in response time and accuracy in numeracy.
abstract: In the study of numeracy, some hypotheses have been based on response time (RT) as a dependent variable and some on accuracy, and considerable controversy has arisen about the presence or absence of correlations between RT and accuracy, between RT or accuracy and individual differences like IQ and math ability, and between various numeracy tasks. In this article, we show that an integration of the two dependent variables is required, which we accomplish with a theory-based model of decision making. We report data from four tasks: numerosity discrimination, number discrimination, memory for two-digit numbers, and memory for three-digit numbers. Accuracy correlated across tasks, as did RTs. However, the negative correlations that might be expected between RT and accuracy were not obtained; if a subject was accurate, it did not mean that they were fast (and vice versa). When the diffusion decision-making model was applied to the data (Ratcliff, 1978), we found significant correlations across the tasks between the quality of the numeracy information (drift rate) driving the decision process and between the speed/accuracy criterion settings, suggesting that similar numeracy skills and similar speed-accuracy settings are involved in the four tasks. In the model, accuracy is related to drift rate and RT is related to speed-accuracy criteria, but drift rate and criteria are not related to each other across subjects. This provides a theoretical basis for understanding why negative correlations were not obtained between accuracy and RT. We also manipulated criteria by instructing subjects to maximize either speed or accuracy, but still found correlations between the criteria settings between and within tasks, suggesting that the settings may represent an individual trait that can be modulated but not equated across subjects. Our results demonstrate that a decision-making model may provide a way to reconcile inconsistent and sometimes contradictory results in numeracy research.
authors: The Ohio State University, United States. Electronic address: ratcliff.22@osu.edu.
authors: Roger
authors: R
authors: Ratcliff
authors: Kent State University, United States.
authors: Clarissa A
authors: CA
authors: Thompson
authors: The Ohio State University, United States.
authors: Gail
authors: G
authors: McKoon
mesh_terms: D003657:Decision Making; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007206:Individuality; D008297:Male; D008433:Mathematics; D008568:Memory / Q000502:physiology*; D011582:Psychological Theory; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: Diffusion model; Individual differences; Number ability; Numeracy; Response time and accuracy
references: Neural Comput. 2008 Apr;20(4):873-922
references: 18085991
references: Exp Psychol. 2013;60(6):385-402
references: 23895923
references: J Math Psychol. 2010 Feb 1;54(1):39-52
references: 20431690
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1990 Aug;16(3):626-41
references: 2144576
references: Psychol Rev. 2013 Jan;120(1):281-92
references: 23148742
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2014 May;148:163-72
references: 24583622
references: Behav Res Methods. 2007 Nov;39(4):767-75
references: 18183889
references: Nature. 2008 Oct 2;455(7213):665-8
references: 18776888
references: J Exp Child Psychol. 2009 May;103(1):17-29
references: 18513738
references: J Exp Child Psychol. 2009 Aug;103(4):490-502
references: 19327782
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):438-81
references: 12412886
references: Psychol Bull. 1992 Jul;112(1):155-9
references: 19565683
references: Cognition. 2010 Jun;115(3):394-406
references: 20347435
references: Psychol Sci. 2010 Sep;21(9):1274-81
references: 20644108
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010 Jun;134(2):154-61
references: 20185118
references: Cogn Psychol. 2008 Nov;57(3):153-78
references: 18243170
references: Psychol Rev. 2001 Jul;108(3):550-92
references: 11488378
references: Cogn Psychol. 2010 May;60(3):127-57
references: 19962693
references: Trends Neurosci. 1998 Aug;21(8):355-61
references: 9720604
references: Dev Sci. 2011 Nov;14(6):1292-300
references: 22010889
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014 Apr;40(2):870-88
references: 24446719
references: Decision (Wash D C ). 2015;2015:null
references: 26236754
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2011 Jan;136(1):73-80
references: 21075357
references: J Exp Child Psychol. 2005 Jun;91(2):113-36
references: 15890173
references: Psychol Rev. 1999 Apr;106(2):261-300
references: 10378014
references: Child Dev. 2011 Jul-Aug;82(4):1224-37
references: 21679173
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Feb;19(1):93-100
references: 22033982
references: Psychol Rev. 2006 Oct;113(4):700-65
references: 17014301
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Dec;18(6):1222-9
references: 21898191
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Aug;13(4):626-35
references: 17201362
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Feb;19(1):139-45
references: 22144142
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011 Aug;140(3):464-87
references: 21707207
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Jun;18(3):490-7
references: 21394547
references: Front Neuroinform. 2013 Aug 02;7:14
references: 23935581
references: Cogn Psychol. 2012 Feb;64(1-2):1-34
references: 22079870
references: J Exp Child Psychol. 2009 Aug;103(4):469-79
references: 19285682
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2004 Jun;133(2):261-82
references: 15149253
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012 May;140(1):50-7
references: 22445770
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Jun;9(2):278-91
references: 12120790
references: Child Dev. 2012 Jan-Feb;83(1):367-81
references: 22188547
references: Psychol Aging. 2006 Jun;21(2):353-71
references: 16768580
references: Psychol Aging. 2001 Jun;16(2):323-41
references: 11405319
references: Cereb Cortex. 2012 Sep;22(9):2102-10
references: 22016480
references: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Nov;64(11):2099-109
references: 21846265
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Dec;14(6):1011-26
references: 18229471
references: Psychol Aging. 2010 Jun;25(2):377-90
references: 20545422