优先选择漂移-扩散模型的价值确定性。

IF 5.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Psychological review Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1037/rev0000329
Douglas G Lee, Marius Usher
{"title":"优先选择漂移-扩散模型的价值确定性。","authors":"Douglas G Lee,&nbsp;Marius Usher","doi":"10.1037/rev0000329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The <i>drift-diffusion model</i> (DDM) is widely used and broadly accepted for its ability to account for binary choices (in both the perceptual and preferential domains) and response times (RT), as a function of the stimulus or the choice alternative (or option) values. The DDM is built on an evidence accumulation-to-bound concept, where, in the value domain, a decision maker repeatedly samples the mental representations of the values of the available options until satisfied that there is enough evidence (or support) in favor of one option over the other. As the signals that drive the evidence are derived from value estimates that are not known with certainty, repeated sequential samples are necessary to average out noise. The classic DDM does not allow for different options to have different levels of precision in their value representations. However, recent studies have shown that decision makers often report levels of certainty regarding value estimates that vary across choice options. There is therefore a need to extend the DDM to include an option-specific value certainty component. We present several such DDM extensions and validate them against empirical data from four previous studies. The data support best a DDM version in which the drift of the accumulation is based on a sort of signal-to-noise ratio of value for each option (rather than a mere accumulation of samples from the corresponding value distributions). This DDM variant accounts for the impact of value certainty on both choice consistency and RT present in the empirical data. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":"130 3","pages":"790-806"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Value certainty in drift-diffusion models of preferential choice.\",\"authors\":\"Douglas G Lee,&nbsp;Marius Usher\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/rev0000329\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The <i>drift-diffusion model</i> (DDM) is widely used and broadly accepted for its ability to account for binary choices (in both the perceptual and preferential domains) and response times (RT), as a function of the stimulus or the choice alternative (or option) values. The DDM is built on an evidence accumulation-to-bound concept, where, in the value domain, a decision maker repeatedly samples the mental representations of the values of the available options until satisfied that there is enough evidence (or support) in favor of one option over the other. As the signals that drive the evidence are derived from value estimates that are not known with certainty, repeated sequential samples are necessary to average out noise. The classic DDM does not allow for different options to have different levels of precision in their value representations. However, recent studies have shown that decision makers often report levels of certainty regarding value estimates that vary across choice options. There is therefore a need to extend the DDM to include an option-specific value certainty component. We present several such DDM extensions and validate them against empirical data from four previous studies. The data support best a DDM version in which the drift of the accumulation is based on a sort of signal-to-noise ratio of value for each option (rather than a mere accumulation of samples from the corresponding value distributions). This DDM variant accounts for the impact of value certainty on both choice consistency and RT present in the empirical data. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21016,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological review\",\"volume\":\"130 3\",\"pages\":\"790-806\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000329\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000329","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

漂移-扩散模型(DDM)被广泛使用并被广泛接受,因为它能够解释二元选择(在感知和偏好领域)和响应时间(RT),作为刺激或选择替代(或选项)值的函数。DDM是建立在证据累积到边界的概念之上的,在这个概念中,在价值域中,决策者反复对可用选项值的心理表征进行采样,直到有足够的证据(或支持)支持一个选项而不是另一个。由于驱动证据的信号来自不确定的值估计,重复的顺序样本是必要的,以平均噪声。经典的DDM不允许不同的选项在其值表示中具有不同级别的精度。然而,最近的研究表明,决策者经常报告关于不同选择的价值估计的确定性水平。因此,需要扩展DDM,以包含特定于期权的价值确定性组件。我们提出了几个这样的DDM扩展,并根据先前四个研究的经验数据验证了它们。数据最好地支持DDM版本,其中累积的漂移是基于每种选项值的某种信噪比(而不仅仅是来自相应值分布的样本的累积)。这种DDM变体解释了价值确定性对经验数据中存在的选择一致性和RT的影响。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Value certainty in drift-diffusion models of preferential choice.

The drift-diffusion model (DDM) is widely used and broadly accepted for its ability to account for binary choices (in both the perceptual and preferential domains) and response times (RT), as a function of the stimulus or the choice alternative (or option) values. The DDM is built on an evidence accumulation-to-bound concept, where, in the value domain, a decision maker repeatedly samples the mental representations of the values of the available options until satisfied that there is enough evidence (or support) in favor of one option over the other. As the signals that drive the evidence are derived from value estimates that are not known with certainty, repeated sequential samples are necessary to average out noise. The classic DDM does not allow for different options to have different levels of precision in their value representations. However, recent studies have shown that decision makers often report levels of certainty regarding value estimates that vary across choice options. There is therefore a need to extend the DDM to include an option-specific value certainty component. We present several such DDM extensions and validate them against empirical data from four previous studies. The data support best a DDM version in which the drift of the accumulation is based on a sort of signal-to-noise ratio of value for each option (rather than a mere accumulation of samples from the corresponding value distributions). This DDM variant accounts for the impact of value certainty on both choice consistency and RT present in the empirical data. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological review
Psychological review 医学-心理学
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Psychological Review publishes articles that make important theoretical contributions to any area of scientific psychology, including systematic evaluation of alternative theories.
期刊最新文献
How does depressive cognition develop? A state-dependent network model of predictive processing. Bouncing back from life's perturbations: Formalizing psychological resilience from a complex systems perspective. The meaning of attention control. Counterfactuals and the logic of causal selection. The relation between learning and stimulus-response binding.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1