Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, 409 Huntington Hall, Syracuse, NY, 13244, USA.
Department of Psychological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Feb;25(1):286-301. doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1271-2.
Researchers and clinicians are interested in estimating individual differences in the ability to process conflicting information. Conflict processing is typically assessed by comparing behavioral measures like RTs or error rates from conflict tasks. However, these measures are hard to interpret because they can be influenced by additional processes like response caution or bias. This limitation can be circumvented by employing cognitive models to decompose behavioral data into components of underlying decision processes, providing better specificity for investigating individual differences. A new class of drift-diffusion models has been developed for conflict tasks, presenting a potential tool to improve analysis of individual differences in conflict processing. However, measures from these models have not been validated for use in experiments with limited data collection. The present study assessed the validity of these models with a parameter-recovery study to determine whether and under what circumstances the models provide valid measures of cognitive processing. Three models were tested: the dual-stage two-phase model (Hübner, Steinhauser, & Lehle, Psychological Review, 117(3), 759-784, 2010), the shrinking spotlight model (White, Ratcliff, & Starns, Cognitive Psychology, 63(4), 210-238, 2011), and the diffusion model for conflict tasks (Ulrich, Schröter, Leuthold, & Birngruber, Cogntive Psychology, 78, 148-174, 2015). The validity of the model parameters was assessed using different methods of fitting the data and different numbers of trials. The results show that each model has limitations in recovering valid parameters, but they can be mitigated by adding constraints to the model. Practical recommendations are provided for when and how each model can be used to analyze data and provide measures of processing in conflict tasks.
研究人员和临床医生有兴趣估计处理冲突信息能力的个体差异。冲突处理通常通过比较来自冲突任务的行为测量（如 RT 或错误率）来评估。然而，这些测量结果难以解释，因为它们可能受到其他过程（如反应谨慎或偏差）的影响。通过采用认知模型将行为数据分解为潜在决策过程的组成部分，可以克服这一限制，从而更好地特异性地研究个体差异。一类新的漂移扩散模型已被开发用于冲突任务，为分析冲突处理中的个体差异提供了一种潜在的工具。然而，这些模型的测量结果尚未在数据收集有限的实验中得到验证。本研究通过参数恢复研究评估了这些模型的有效性，以确定模型是否以及在什么情况下提供冲突处理认知加工的有效测量。测试了三个模型：双阶段两阶段模型（Hübner、Steinhauser 和 Lehle，《心理学评论》，117(3)，759-784，2010）、收缩聚光灯模型（White、Ratcliff 和 Starns，《认知心理学》，63(4)，210-238，2011）和冲突任务扩散模型（Ulrich、Schröter、Leuthold 和 Birngruber，《认知心理学》，78，148-174，2015）。通过使用不同的数据拟合方法和不同数量的试验来评估模型参数的有效性。结果表明，每个模型在恢复有效参数方面都存在局限性，但通过对模型施加约束可以减轻这些局限性。提供了关于何时以及如何使用每个模型分析数据并提供冲突任务处理措施的实用建议。
