188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29450793)
1. The Quality of Response Time Data Inference: A Blinded, Collaborative Assessment of the Validity of Cognitive Models.
Dutilh G; Annis J; Brown SD; Cassey P; Evans NJ; Grasman RPPP; Hawkins GE; Heathcote A; Holmes WR; Krypotos AM; Kupitz CN; Leite FP; Lerche V; Lin YS; Logan GD; Palmeri TJ; Starns JJ; Trueblood JS; van Maanen L; van Ravenzwaaij D; Vandekerckhove J; Visser I; Voss A; White CN; Wiecki TV; Rieskamp J; Donkin C
Psychon Bull Rev; 2019 Aug; 26(4):1051-1069. PubMed ID: 29450793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assessing the practical differences between model selection methods in inferences about choice response time tasks.
Evans NJ
Psychon Bull Rev; 2019 Aug; 26(4):1070-1098. PubMed ID: 30783896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Unfalsifiability and mutual translatability of major modeling schemes for choice reaction time.
Jones M; Dzhafarov EN
Psychol Rev; 2014 Jan; 121(1):1-32. PubMed ID: 24079307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Diffusion versus linear ballistic accumulation: different models for response time with different conclusions about psychological mechanisms?
Heathcote A; Hayes B
Can J Exp Psychol; 2012 Jun; 66(2):125-36. PubMed ID: 22686161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Psychological interpretation of the ex-Gaussian and shifted Wald parameters: a diffusion model analysis.
Matzke D; Wagenmakers EJ
Psychon Bull Rev; 2009 Oct; 16(5):798-817. PubMed ID: 19815782
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Bayes factors for the linear ballistic accumulator model of decision-making.
Evans NJ; Brown SD
Behav Res Methods; 2018 Apr; 50(2):589-603. PubMed ID: 28455795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Testing the validity of conflict drift-diffusion models for use in estimating cognitive processes: A parameter-recovery study.
White CN; Servant M; Logan GD
Psychon Bull Rev; 2018 Feb; 25(1):286-301. PubMed ID: 28357629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Dynamic models of choice.
Heathcote A; Lin YS; Reynolds A; Strickland L; Gretton M; Matzke D
Behav Res Methods; 2019 Apr; 51(2):961-985. PubMed ID: 29959755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Bayesian statistical approaches to evaluating cognitive models.
Annis J; Palmeri TJ
Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci; 2018 Mar; 9(2):. PubMed ID: 29193776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A cognitive model-based approach to testing mechanistic explanations for neuropsychological decrements during tobacco abstinence.
Weigard A; Huang-Pollock C; Heathcote A; Hawk L; Schlienz NJ
Psychopharmacology (Berl); 2018 Nov; 235(11):3115-3124. PubMed ID: 30182252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Assessing the validity of multinomial models using extraneous variables: an application to prospective memory.
Rummel J; Boywitt CD; Meiser T
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2011 Nov; 64(11):2194-210. PubMed ID: 21736435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. An alternative approach to analysis of mental states in experimental social cognition research.
Lench HC; Taylor AB; Bench SW
Behav Res Methods; 2014 Mar; 46(1):215-28. PubMed ID: 23709165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Speed-accuracy manipulations and diffusion modeling: Lack of discriminant validity of the manipulation or of the parameter estimates?
Lerche V; Voss A
Behav Res Methods; 2018 Dec; 50(6):2568-2585. PubMed ID: 29542062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The trade-off between accuracy and precision in latent variable models of mediation processes.
Ledgerwood A; Shrout PE
J Pers Soc Psychol; 2011 Dec; 101(6):1174-88. PubMed ID: 21806305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Integrating cognitive process and descriptive models of attitudes and preferences.
Hawkins GE; Marley AA; Heathcote A; Flynn TN; Louviere JJ; Brown SD
Cogn Sci; 2014; 38(4):701-35. PubMed ID: 24124986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Dynamic cognitive models of intertemporal choice.
Dai J; Pleskac TJ; Pachur T
Cogn Psychol; 2018 Aug; 104():29-56. PubMed ID: 29587183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evidence accumulation in a complex task: Making choices about concurrent multiattribute stimuli under time pressure.
Palada H; Neal A; Vuckovic A; Martin R; Samuels K; Heathcote A
J Exp Psychol Appl; 2016 Mar; 22(1):1-23. PubMed ID: 26844369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Modeling accuracy, response time, and bias in continuous orientation judgments.
Kvam PD
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2019 Mar; 45(3):301-318. PubMed ID: 30714760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Approximating Bayesian Inference through Model Simulation.
Turner BM; Van Zandt T
Trends Cogn Sci; 2018 Sep; 22(9):826-840. PubMed ID: 30093313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cognitive models of physicians' legal standard and personal judgments of competency in patients with Alzheimer's disease.
Earnst KS; Marson DC; Harrell LE
J Am Geriatr Soc; 2000 Aug; 48(8):919-27. PubMed ID: 10968295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
