Are model parameters linked to processing stages? An empirical investigation for the ex-Gaussian, ex-Wald, and EZ diffusion models
- 69 Downloads
In previous research, the parameters of the ex-Gaussian distribution have been subject to a wide variety of interpretations. The present study investigated whether the ex-Gaussian model is capable of distinguishing effects on separate processing stages (i.e., pre-motor vs. motor). In order to do so, we used datasets where the locus of effect was quite clear. Specifically, we analyzed data from experiments comparing hand vs. foot responses—presumably differing in the motor stage—and from experiments in which the lateralized readiness potential was used to localize experimental effects into premotor vs. motor processes. Moreover, we broadened the scope to two other descriptive RT models: the ex-Wald and EZ diffusion models. To the extent possible with each of these models, we reanalyzed the RT data of 19 clearly localized experimental effects from 12 separate experiments reported in seven previously published articles. Unfortunately, we did not find a clear pattern of results for any of the models, with no clear link between effects on one of the model’s parameters and effects on different processing stages. The present results suggest that one should resist the temptation to associate specific processing stages with individual parameters of the ex-Gaussian, ex-Wald, and EZ diffusion models.
This research was conducted while the first author was carrying out a research internship at the University of Otago. Tobias Rieger was supported by the mobility program (PROMOS) of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5 (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Pub.Google Scholar
- Balota, D. A., Tse, C.-S., Hutchison, K. A., Spieler, D. H., Duchek, J. M., & Morris, J. C. (2010). Predicting conversion to dementia of the Alzheimer’s type in a healthy control sample: The power of errors in Stroop color naming. Psychology and Aging, 25(1), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017474.Google Scholar
- Dutilh, G., Annis, J., Brown, S. D., Cassey, P., Evans, N. J., Grasman, R. P. P. P., et al. (2018). The quality of response time data inference: A blinded, collaborative assessment of the validity of cognitive models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1417-2.Google Scholar
- Epstein, J. N., Langberg, J. M., Rosen, P. J., Graham, A., Narad, M. E., Antonini, T. N., et al. (2011). Evidence for higher reaction time variability for children with ADHD on a range of cognitive tasks including reward and event rate manipulations. Neuropsychology, 25(4), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022155.Google Scholar
- Izawa, J., Pekny, S. E., Marko, M. K., Haswell, C. C., Shadmehr, R., & Mostofsky, S. H. (2012). Motor learning relies on integrated sensory inputs in ADHD, but over-selectively on proprioception in Autism spectrum conditions. Autism Research, 5(2), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1222.Google Scholar
- Jackson, J. D., Balota, D. A., Duchek, J. M., & Head, D. (2012). White matter integrity and reaction time intraindividual variability in healthy aging and early-stage Alzheimer disease. Neuropsychologia, 50(3), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.11.024.Google Scholar
- Kóbor, A., Takács, Ádám, Bryce, D., Szűcs, D., Honbolygó, F., Nagy, P., & Csépe, V. (2015). Children with ADHD show impairments in multiple stages of information processing in a Stroop task: An ERP study. Developmental Neuropsychology, 40(6), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2015.1086770.Google Scholar
- Luce, R. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- McGill, W. J. (1963). Stochastic latency mechanisms. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (pp. 309–360). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Ridderinkhof, K. R., Scheres, A., Oosterlaan, J., & Sergeant, J. A. (2005). Delta plots in the study of individual differences: new tools reveal response inhibition deficits in AD/HD that are eliminated by methylphenidate treatment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114(2), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.114.2.197.Google Scholar
- Schmiedek, F., Oberauer, K., Wilhelm, O., Süß, 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(3), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3422.214.171.1244.Google Scholar
- Singh, T., Laub, R., Burgard, J. P., & Frings, C. (2018). Disentangling inhibition-based and retrieval-based aftereffects of distractors: Cognitive versus motor processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(5), 797–805. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000496.Google Scholar
- Smulders, F. T., & Miller, J. O. (2012). The lateralized readiness potential. The Oxford Handbook of Event-Related Potential Components. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195374148.013.0115.Google Scholar
- Spieler, D. H., Balota, D. A., & Faust, M. E. (1996). Stroop performance in healthy younger and older adults and in individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(2), 461–479. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-15126.96.36.1991.Google Scholar
- Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662.Google Scholar
- Tse, C.-S., Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Duchek, J. M., & McCabe, D. P. (2010). Effects of healthy aging and early stage dementia of the Alzheimer’s type on components of response time distributions in three attention tasks. Neuropsychology, 24(3), 300–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018274.Google Scholar
- Vaurio, R. G., Simmonds, D. J., & Mostofsky, S. H. (2009). Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands. Neuropsychologia, 47(12), 2389–2396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.01.022.Google Scholar
- Verleger, R., Kuniecki, M., Möller, F., Fritzmannova, M., & Siebner, H. R. (2009). On how the motor cortices resolve an inter-hemispheric response conflict: An event-related EEG potential-guided TMS study of the flankers task. European Journal of Neuroscience, 30(2), 318–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06817.x.Google Scholar
- Wixted, J. T., Ghadisha, H., & Vera, R. (1997). Recall latency following pure- and mixed-strength lists: A direct test of the relative strength model of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(3), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-73188.8.131.523.Google Scholar