Ratcliff R, Van Zandt T, McKoon G
Psychology Department, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA.
Psychol Rev. 1999 Apr;106(2):261-300. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.106.2.261.
Two connectionist frameworks, GRAIN (J. L. McClelland, 1993) and brain-state-in-a-box (J. A. Anderson, 1991), and R. Ratcliff's (1978) diffusion model were evaluated using data from a signal detection task. Dependent variables included response probabilities, reaction times for correct and error responses, and shapes of reaction-time distributions. The diffusion model accounted for all aspects of the data, including error reaction times that had previously been a problem for all response-time models. The connectionist models accounted for many aspects of the data adequately, but each failed to a greater or lesser degree in important ways except for one model that was similar to the diffusion model. The findings advance the development of the diffusion model and show that the long tradition of reaction-time research and theory is a fertile domain for development and testing of connectionist assumptions about how decisions are generated over time.
使用来自信号检测任务的数据，对两种联结主义框架（GRAIN，J. L. 麦克莱兰，1993；以及盒中脑状态模型，J. A. 安德森，1991）和R. 拉特克利夫（1978）的扩散模型进行了评估。因变量包括反应概率、正确和错误反应的反应时间，以及反应时间分布的形状。扩散模型解释了数据的所有方面，包括错误反应时间，而错误反应时间此前一直是所有反应时间模型面临的一个问题。联结主义模型在很大程度上充分解释了数据的许多方面，但除了一个与扩散模型相似的模型外，每个模型在重要方面都或多或少地存在不足。这些发现推动了扩散模型的发展，并表明反应时间研究和理论的悠久传统是一个富有成果的领域，可用于对联结主义关于决策如何随时间产生的假设进行开发和检验。
