Boehm Udo, Hawkins Guy E, Brown Scott, van Rijn Hedderik, Wagenmakers Eric-Jan
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712, TS, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam Brain and Cognition Center, University of Amsterdam, 1018, WS, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Jun;23(3):738-49. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0958-5.
For decades sequential sampling models have successfully accounted for human and monkey decision-making, relying on the standard assumption that decision makers maintain a pre-set decision standard throughout the decision process. Based on the theoretical argument of reward rate maximization, some authors have recently suggested that decision makers become increasingly impatient as time passes and therefore lower their decision standard. Indeed, a number of studies show that computational models with an impatience component provide a good fit to human and monkey decision behavior. However, many of these studies lack quantitative model comparisons and systematic manipulations of rewards. Moreover, the often-cited evidence from single-cell recordings is not unequivocal and complimentary data from human subjects is largely missing. We conclude that, despite some enthusiastic calls for the abandonment of the standard model, the idea of an impatience component has yet to be fully established; we suggest a number of recently developed tools that will help bring the debate to a conclusive settlement.
几十年来，序贯抽样模型成功地解释了人类和猴子的决策过程，其依据的标准假设是，决策者在整个决策过程中维持一个预先设定的决策标准。基于奖励率最大化的理论观点，一些作者最近提出，随着时间的推移，决策者会变得越来越不耐烦，因此会降低他们的决策标准。确实，许多研究表明，带有不耐烦成分的计算模型能够很好地拟合人类和猴子的决策行为。然而，这些研究中的许多都缺乏定量的模型比较和对奖励的系统性操纵。此外，经常被引用的单细胞记录证据并不明确，而且很大程度上缺少来自人类受试者的补充数据。我们得出结论，尽管有人热烈呼吁摒弃标准模型，但不耐烦成分的观点尚未完全确立；我们建议使用一些最近开发的工具，这将有助于使这场辩论得出结论性的结果。
