Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Benefits of response time-extended multinomial processing tree models: A reply to Starns (2018)

Abstract

In his comment on Heck and Erdfelder (2016, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1440–1465), Starns (2018, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 2406–2416) focuses on the response time-extended two-high-threshold (2HT-RT) model for yes-no recognition tasks, a specific example for the general class of response time-extended multinomial processing tree models (MPT-RTs) we proposed. He argues that the 2HT-RT model cannot accommodate the speed–accuracy trade-off, a key mechanism in speeded recognition tasks. As a remedy, he proposes a specific discrete-state model for recognition memory that assumes a race mechanism for detection and guessing. In this reply, we clarify our motivation for using the 2HT-RT model as an example and highlight the importance and benefits of MPT-RTs as a flexible class of general-purpose, simple-to-use models. By binning RTs into discrete categories, the MPT-RT approach facilitates the joint modeling of discrete responses and response times in a variety of psychological paradigms. In fact, many paradigms either lack a clear-cut accuracy criterion or show performance levels at ceiling, making corrections for incautious responding redundant. Moreover, we show that some forms of speed–accuracy trade-off can in fact not only be accommodated but also be measured by appropriately designed MPT-RTs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Here, we refer to the race model as a “process model” because it assumes a specific processing mechanism to account for speed–accuracy trade-offs (i.e., a latent race). However, some formal theorists may prefer the label “measurement model”.

  2. 2.

    In Starns’ comment, this issue is briefly discussed in the section “Differences in guessing RTs”.

  3. 3.

    Obviously, technical complexity itself is not a drawback. In an ideal world, if a technically complex model turns out to be necessary to explain a cognitive phenomenon, researchers should improve their skills instead of falling back to simple methods.

  4. 4.

    We thank David Kellen for outlining this important point very clearly.

  5. 5.

    Note that Brainerd et al., (2019) refer to guessing processes as bias processes.

References

  1. Batchelder, W. H., & Riefer, D.M. (1999). Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 57–86. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210812

  2. Brainerd, C. J., Gomes, C. F. A., & Moran, R. (2014). The two recollections. Psychological Review, 121, 563–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037668

  3. Brainerd, C. J., Nakamura, K., & Lee, W.-F.A. (2019). Recollection is fast and slow. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45, 302–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000588

  4. Erdfelder, E., & Buchner, A. (1998). Decomposing the hindsight bias: A multinomial processing tree model for separating recollection and reconstruction in hindsight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 387–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.2.387

  5. Erdfelder, E., Auer, T. -S., Hilbig, B. E., Assfalg, A., Moshagen, M., & Nadarevic, L. (2009). Multinomial processing tree models: A review of the literature. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 217, 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.108

  6. Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2008). Modeling option and strategy choices with connectionist networks: Towards an integrative model of automatic and deliberate decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 215–228. Retrieved from http://journal.sjdm.org/bn3/bn3.html.

  7. Heck, D. W., & Erdfelder, E. (2016). Extending multinomial processing tree models to measure the relative speed of cognitive processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1440–1465. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1025-6

  8. Heck, D. W., & Erdfelder, E. (2017). Linking process and measurement models of recognition-based decisions. Psychological Review, 124, 442–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000063

  9. Heck, D. W., Arnold, N. R., & Arnold, D. (2018a). TreeBUGS: An R package for hierarchical multinomial-processing-tree modeling. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 264–284. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0869-7

  10. Heck, D. W., Erdfelder, E., & Kieslich, P.J. (2018b). Generalized processing tree models: Jointly modeling discrete and continuous variables. Psychometrika, 83, 893–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-018-9622-0

  11. Hilbig, B. E., Erdfelder, E., & Pohl, R. F. (2010). One-reason decision making unveiled: A measurement model of the recognition heuristic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017518

  12. Hu, X., & Batchelder, W. H. (1994). The statistical analysis of general processing tree models with the EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 59, 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02294263

  13. Hu, X. (2001). Extending general processing tree models to analyze reaction time experiments. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 603–634. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmps.2000.1340

  14. Hütter, M., & Klauer, K. C. (2016). Applying processing trees in social psychology. European Review of Social Psychology, 27, 116–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2016.1212966

  15. Klauer, K. C., & Kellen, D. (2018). RT-MPTs: Process models for response-time distributions based on multinomial processing trees with applications to recognition memory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 82, 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2017.12.003

  16. Klein, S. A., Hilbig, B. E., & Heck, D.W. (2017). Which is the greater good? A social dilemma paradigm disentangling environmentalism and cooperation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.06.001

  17. Moshagen, M. (2010). multiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 42–54. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.42

  18. Ollman, R. (1966). Fast guesses in choice reaction time. Psychonomic Science, 6, 155–156. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03328004

  19. Rae, B., Heathcote, A., Donkin, C., Averell, L., & Brown, S. (2014). The hare and the tortoise: Emphasizing speed can change the evidence used to make decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1226–1243. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036801

  20. Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural computation, 20, 873–922. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420

  21. Singmann, H., & Kellen, D. (2013). MPTinR: Analysis of multinomial processing tree models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 560–575. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0259-0

  22. Starns, J. J. (2018). Adding a speed–accuracy trade-off to discrete-state models: A comment on Heck and Erdfelder (2016). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 2406–2416. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1456-3

  23. Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders? method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(69)90055-9

  24. Townsend, J. T. (1984). Uncovering mental processes with factorial experiments. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 28, 363–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(84)90007-5

  25. Ulrich, R., Schröter, H., Leuthold, H., & Birngruber, T. (2015). Automatic and controlled stimulus processing in conflict tasks: Superimposed diffusion processes and delta functions. Cognitive Psychology, 78, 148–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.02.005

  26. Voss, A., Nagler, M., & Lerche, V. (2013). Diffusion models in experimental psychology: A practical introduction. Experimental Psychology, 60, 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000218

  27. Yellott, J. I. (1971). Correction for fast guessing and the speed–accuracy tradeoff in choice reaction time. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 8, 159–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(71)90011-3

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Jeff Starns, David Kellen, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful and constructive comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. R code for the simulations is available at the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/qkfxz/. This work was supported by the research training group Statistical Modeling in Psychology, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG; grant GRK 2277).

Author information

Correspondence to Daniel W. Heck.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heck, D.W., Erdfelder, E. Benefits of response time-extended multinomial processing tree models: A reply to Starns (2018). Psychon Bull Rev (2020). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01663-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • MPT model
  • Processing speed
  • Reaction time
  • Discrete-state models
  • Speed–accuracy trade-off