What mechanisms mediate prior probability effects on rapid-choice decision-making?

Rapid-choice decision-making is biased by prior probability of response alternatives. Conventionally, prior probability effects are assumed to selectively affect, response threshold, which determines the amount of evidence required to trigger a decision. However, there may also be effects on the rat...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PloS one 2023-07, Vol.18 (7), p.e0288085-e0288085
Main Authors: Puri, Rohan, Hinder, Mark R, Heathcote, Andrew
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accumulation
Accuracy
Adults
Aged
Analysis
Bias
Biology and Life Sciences
Conditional probability
Decision making
Diffusion models
Distribution (Probability theory)
Evaluation
Mediation
Older people
People and Places
Probability
Racing
Response-time task
Social Sciences
Young adults
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Rapid-choice decision-making is biased by prior probability of response alternatives. Conventionally, prior probability effects are assumed to selectively affect, response threshold, which determines the amount of evidence required to trigger a decision. However, there may also be effects on the rate at which evidence is accumulated and the time required for non-decision processes (e.g., response production). Healthy young (n = 21) and older (n = 20) adults completed a choice response-time task requiring left- or right-hand responses to imperative stimuli. Prior probability was manipulated using a warning stimulus that informed participants that a particular response was 70% likely (i.e., the imperative stimulus was either congruent or incongruent with the warning stimulus). In addition, prior probability was either fixed for blocks of trials (block-wise bias) or varied from trial-to-trial (trial-wise bias). Response time and accuracy data were analysed using the racing diffusion evidence-accumulation model to test the selective influence assumption. Response times for correct responses were slower on incongruent than congruent trials, and older adults' responses were slower, but more accurate, than young adults. Evidence-accumulation modelling favoured an effect of prior probability on both response thresholds and nondecision time. Overall, the current results cast doubt on the selective threshold influence assumption in the racing diffusion model.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0288085