# Trait Characteristics of Diffusion Model Parameters

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

#### 1.1. The Diffusion Model: A Process Model of Speeded Binary Decision Making

#### 1.2. Correlations between Diffusion Model Parameters and Mental Abilities

#### 1.3. Diffusion Model Parameters as Personality Traits

## 2. Experimental Section

#### 2.1. Participants

#### 2.2. Measures

#### Response Time Tasks

**Visual choice response time task.**We used a choice response time (CRT) task with either two (CR2) or four (CR4) response alternatives. Four white squares were presented in a row on a black screen. Participants’ middle and index fingers rested on four keys directly underneath the squares. After a delay of 1000–1500 ms, a cross appeared in one of the four squares and participants had to press the corresponding key as fast as possible. In the two-choice response time condition, the choice space was reduced to two squares in which the cross could appear for 50 subsequent trials. After completing a block of 50 trials, participants were informed that the cross could now only appear in a different combination of squares (outer left and left squares, outer right and right squares, inner squares, outer squares). In the four-choice response time condition, the cross could appear in any of the four squares. Both conditions began with ten practice trials with immediate feedback followed by 200 test trials without feedback. The order of conditions was counterbalanced across participants.

**Sternberg memory scanning task.**Participants were shown a memory set consisting of one (set size one, S1), three (set size three, S3), or five (set size five, S5) digits from 0 to 9 on a black computer screen. Subsequently, participants were shown a probe digit and had to decide whether the probe was contained in the previously presented memory set by pressing one of two keys. This was the case in 50% of the trials. The position of keys indicating whether the probe item was part of the memory set was counterbalanced across participants. Each of the three conditions began with ten practice trials with immediate feedback followed by 100 test trials without feedback. The order of conditions was counterbalanced across participants.

**Posner letter matching task.**Participants were shown two letters and had to decide whether they were identical. In the physical identity (PI) condition, participants had to decide whether they were physically identical, and in the the name identity (NI) condition, they had to decide whether the two presented letters had the same name. The position of keys indicating whether the letters were identical was counterbalanced across participants. Both conditions began with ten practice trials with immediate feedback followed by 300 test trials without feedback. All participants started with the PI condition at the first laboratory session, whereas all participants started with the NI condition at the second laboratory session.

#### 2.3. Procedure

#### 2.4. Data Analysis

#### 2.4.1. Response Time Data

#### 2.4.2. Statistical Analysis

## 3. Results and Discussion

#### 3.1. Descriptive Data

#### 3.2. Diffusion Model Analysis

#### 3.2.1. Drift Rate

**CRT task.**The LST model provided a good fit for the data, ${\chi}^{2}$(7) = 6.90, p = .440, CFI = 1, RMSEA = .00 [.00; .11]. However, the variances of the latent state residuals and of the method factor for the four choice condition were negative and/or non-significant (VAR($S{R}_{1}$) = −0.03, p = .659; VAR($S{R}_{2}$) = 0.05, p = .413; VAR($CR{4}_{v}$) = 0.01, p = .948). Hence, these variances were fixed to zero. These modifications did not impair model fit, ${\chi}^{2}$(10) = 7.67, p = .661, CFI = 1, RMSEA = .01 [.00; .08]. See the upper part of Figure 3A (p. 12) for the final model and Table 3 (p. 13) for the associated LST parameters.

**Sternberg memory scanning task.**The LST model provided an acceptable fit for the data, ${\chi}^{2}$(18) = 26.53, p = .088, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .06 [.00; .11]. However, the variances of the latent state residuals and of the method factor for the set size 3 condition were non-significant (VAR($S{R}_{1}$) = 0.02, p = .748; VAR($S{R}_{2}$) = 0.90, p = .099; VAR($S{3}_{v}$) = 0.01, p = .851). Hence, these variances were fixed to zero. These modifications did not impair model fit, ${\chi}^{2}$(21) = 31.38, p = .068, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .07 [.00; .11]. See the middle part of Figure 3A (p. 12) for the final model and Table 3 (p. 13) for the associated LST parameters.

**Posner letter matching task.**The LST model provided a good fit for the data, ${\chi}^{2}$(7) = 7.44, p = .385, CFI = 1, RMSEA = .02 [.00; .12]. However, the variances of the latent state residuals and of the method factor for the physical identity condition were non-significant (VAR($S{R}_{1}$) = 0.06, p = .301; VAR($S{R}_{2}$) = 0.12, p = .063; VAR($P{I}_{v}$) = 0.07, p = .322). Hence, these variances were fixed to zero. Afterwards, model fit was still acceptable, ${\chi}^{2}$(10) = 16.08, p = .097, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .07 [.00; .14]. See the lower part of Figure 3A (p. 12) for the final model and Table 3 (p. 13) for the associated LST parameters.

#### 3.2.2. Boundary Separation

**CRT task.**The LST model provided a good fit for the data, ${\chi}^{2}$(7) = 2.43, p = .933, CFI = 1, RMSEA = .00 [.00; .03]. However, the variances of the latent state residuals and of the method factors were non-significant (VAR($S{R}_{1}$) = 0.04, p = .536; VAR($S{R}_{2}$) = 0.11, p = .134; VAR($CR{2}_{v}$) = 0.08, p = .303; VAR($CR{4}_{v}$) = 0.15, p = .079). Hence, these variances were fixed to zero. These modifications did not impair model fit, ${\chi}^{2}$(11) = 8.38, p = .679, CFI = 1, RMSEA = .00 [.00; .08]. See the upper part of Figure 3B (p. 12) for the final model and Table 3 (p. 13) for the associated LST parameters.

**Sternberg memory scanning task.**The LST model provided an acceptable fit for the data, ${\chi}^{2}$(18) = 24.78, p = .131, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .06 [.00; .11]. However, the variances of the latent state residuals and of the method factors were non-significant and/or negative (VAR($S{R}_{1}$) = −0.04, p = .465; VAR($S{R}_{2}$) = 0.11, p = .100; VAR($S{1}_{v}$) = 0.08, p = .330; VAR($S{3}_{v}$) = −0.09, p = .247; VAR($S{5}_{v}$) = 0.05, p = .529). Hence, these variances were fixed to zero. These modifications did not impair model fit, ${\chi}^{2}$(23) = 31.51, p = .111, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .06 [.00; .10]. See the middle part of Figure 3B (p. 12) for the final model and Table 3 (p. 13) for the associated LST parameters.

**Posner letter matching task.**The LST model provided a good fit for the data, ${\chi}^{2}$(7) = 5.52, p = .597, CFI = 1, RMSEA = .00 [.00; .10]. However, the variances of the latent state residuals and of the method factors were negative and/or non-significant (VAR($S{R}_{1}$) = −0.03, p = .652; VAR($S{R}_{2}$) = 0.05, p = .429; VAR($P{I}_{v}$) = −0.11, p = .071, VAR($N{I}_{v}$) = 0.13, p = .079). Hence, these variances were fixed to zero. These modifications did not impair model fit, ${\chi}^{2}$(11) = 11.55, p = .398, CFI = 1, RMSEA = .02 [.00; .10]. See the lower part of Figure 3B (p. 12) for the final model and Table 3 (p. 13) for the associated LST parameters.

#### 3.2.3. Non-Decision Time

**CRT task.**The LST model provided a good fit for the data, ${\chi}^{2}$(7) = 2.21, p = .947, CFI = 1, RMSEA = .00 [.00; .01]. See the upper part of Figure 3C (p. 12) for the final model and Table 3 (p. 13) for the associated LST parameters.

**Sternberg memory scanning task.**The LST model did not provide an acceptable fit for the data, ${\chi}^{2}$(18) = 62.32, p < .001, CFI = .78, RMSEA = .15 [.11; .19]. The variances of the latent state residuals and of the method factors were non-significant and/or negative (VAR($S{R}_{1}$) = −0.06, p = .316; VAR($S{R}_{2}$) = 0.05, p = .473; VAR($S{1}_{v}$) = −0.07, p = .377; VAR($S{3}_{v}$) = −0.24, p = .002; VAR($S{5}_{v}$) = −0.17, p = .016). Hence, these variances were fixed to zero. These modifications did not change model fit to a great degree, ${\chi}^{2}$(23) = 83.49, p < .001, CFI = .67, RMSEA = .15 [.12; .19]. See the middle part of Figure 3C (p. 12) for the final model and Table 3 (p. 13) for the associated LST parameters.

**Posner letter matching task.**The LST model provided a good fit for the data, ${\chi}^{2}$(7) = 1.77, p = .971, CFI = 1, RMSEA = .00 [.00; .10]. However, the variances of the latent state residual reflecting the second measurement occasion and of the method factor for the name identity condition were negative and/or non-significant (VAR($S{R}_{2}$) = 0.13, p = .086; VAR($N{I}_{v}$) = −0.10, p = .145. Hence, these variances were fixed to zero. These modifications did not impair model fit, ${\chi}^{2}$(9) = 8.13, p = .521, CFI = 1, RMSEA = .00 [.00; .10]. Now, however, the method factor for the physical identity condition was non-significant, VAR($P{I}_{v}$) = 0.11, p = .110, and was subsequently fixed to zero. The final model still provided a good fit for the data, ${\chi}^{2}$(10) = 10.99, p = .359, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .03 [.00; .11]. See the lower part of Figure 3C (p. 12) for the final model and Table 3 (p. 13) for the associated LST parameters.

#### 3.3. Discussion

## 4. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A. QQ-Plot Evaluating the Fit of Diffusion Model Parameters

**Figure A1.**Correlations between empirical and predicted mean response times in seconds across four percentiles (P1 to P4) after the removal of outliers in all tasks. Dots represent mean response times at the first laboratory session and crosses represent mean response times at the second laboratory session.

## Appendix B. Correlation Tables for Diffusion Model Parameters Across Measurement Points

**Table A1.**Product–moment correlations between drift rate parameters at the first and second laboratory session.

Session 1 | Session 2 | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

CR2 | CR4 | S1 | S3 | S5 | PI | NI | CR2 | CR4 | S1 | S3 | S5 | PI | NI | ||

Ses. 1 | CR2 | 1 | 0.43 | 0.28 | 0.35 | 0.25 | 0.51 | 0.55 | 0.60 | 0.47 | 0.51 | 0.45 | 0.47 | 0.48 | 0.56 |

CR4 | 1 | 0.26 | 0.37 | 0.21 | 0.31 | 0.45 | 0.39 | 0.44 | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 0.41 | ||

S1 | 1 | 0.41 | 0.30 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.22 | 0.53 | 0.42 | 0.32 | 0.23 | 0.23 | |||

S3 | 1 | 0.31 | 0.44 | 0.40 | 0.30 | 0.15 | 0.43 | 0.52 | 0.35 | 0.39 | 0.40 | ||||

S5 | 1 | 0.38 | 0.45 | 0.25 | 0.26 | 0.30 | 0.53 | 0.53 | 0.32 | 0.44 | |||||

PI | 1 | 0.56 | 0.35 | 0.36 | 0.56 | 0.53 | 0.42 | 0.60 | 0.57 | ||||||

NI | 1 | 0.39 | 0.37 | 0.46 | 0.56 | 0.53 | 0.49 | 0.71 | |||||||

Ses. 2 | CR2 | 1 | 0.64 | 0.52 | 0.43 | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.30 | |||||||

CR4 | 1 | 0.36 | 0.30 | 0.32 | 0.35 | 0.31 | |||||||||

S1 | 1 | 0.60 | 0.50 | 0.49 | 0.51 | ||||||||||

S3 | 1 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.66 | |||||||||||

S5 | 1 | 0.47 | 0.60 | ||||||||||||

PI | 1 | 0.70 | |||||||||||||

NI | 1 |

**Table A2.**Product–moment correlations between boundary separation parameters at the first and second laboratory session.

Session 1 | Session 2 | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

CR2 | CR4 | S1 | S3 | S5 | PI | NI | CR2 | CR4 | S1 | S3 | S5 | PI | NI | ||

Ses. 1 | CR2 | 1 | 0.39 | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.26 | 0.22 | 0.17 | 0.46 | 0.33 | 0.40 | 0.26 | 0.15 | 0.18 | 0.13 |

CR4 | 1 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.24 | 0.42 | 0.54 | 0.41 | 0.51 | 0.46 | 0.30 | 0.22 | 0.48 | 0.49 | ||

S1 | 1 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.23 | 0.18 | 0.19 | 0.20 | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.16 | 0.07 | |||

S3 | 1 | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.20 | 0.24 | 0.07 | 0.23 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.23 | 0.15 | ||||

S5 | 1 | 0.29 | 0.45 | 0.25 | 0.35 | 0.32 | 0.47 | 0.34 | 0.24 | 0.36 | |||||

PI | 1 | 0.56 | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.43 | 0.36 | 0.22 | 0.47 | 0.53 | ||||||

NI | 1 | 0.32 | 0.33 | 0.39 | 0.55 | 0.24 | 0.57 | 0.60 | |||||||

Ses. 2 | CR2 | 1 | 0.50 | 0.48 | 0.28 | 0.20 | 0.29 | 0.35 | |||||||

CR4 | 1 | 0.52 | 0.33 | 0.26 | 0.49 | 0.48 | |||||||||

S1 | 1 | 0.55 | 0.33 | 0.45 | 0.44 | ||||||||||

S3 | 1 | 0.45 | 0.38 | 0.47 | |||||||||||

S5 | 1 | 0.22 | 0.39 | ||||||||||||

PI | 1 | 0.57 | |||||||||||||

NI | 1 |

**Table A3.**Product–moment correlations between non-decision time parameters at the first and second laboratory session.

Session 1 | Session 2 | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

CR2 | CR4 | S1 | S3 | S5 | PI | NI | CR2 | CR4 | S1 | S3 | S5 | PI | NI | ||

Ses. 1 | CR2 | 1 | 0.48 | 0.25 | 0.31 | 0.28 | 0.39 | 0.41 | 0.26 | 0.28 | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.24 | 0.33 | 0.27 |

CR4 | 1 | 0.17 | 0.33 | 0.37 | 0.48 | 0.44 | 0.17 | 0.26 | 0.33 | 0.43 | 0.28 | 0.34 | 0.40 | ||

S1 | 1 | 0.16 | 0.11 | 0.28 | 0.21 | 0.32 | 0.27 | 0.44 | 0.22 | 0.13 | 0.31 | 0.22 | |||

S3 | 1 | 0.61 | 0.42 | 0.29 | 0.30 | 0.18 | 0.33 | 0.55 | 0.53 | 0.23 | 0.20 | ||||

S5 | 1 | 0.54 | 0.34 | −0.01 | 0.03 | 0.23 | 0.61 | 0.54 | 0.29 | 0.34 | |||||

PI | 1 | 0.59 | 0.21 | 0.38 | 0.40 | 0.56 | 0.45 | 0.63 | 0.63 | ||||||

NI | 1 | 0.33 | 0.36 | 0.31 | 0.35 | 0.20 | 0.55 | 0.56 | |||||||

Ses. 2 | CR2 | 1 | 0.99 | 0.12 | −0.03 | −0.06 | −0.09 | −0.22 | |||||||

CR4 | 1 | 0.15 | 0 .01 | −0.02 | −0.04 | −0.14 | |||||||||

S1 | 1 | 0.49 | 0.35 | 0.28 | 0.37 | ||||||||||

S3 | 1 | 0.53 | 0.29 | 0.34 | |||||||||||

S5 | 1 | 0.27 | .30 | ||||||||||||

PI | 1 | 0.66 | |||||||||||||

NI | 1 |

## References

- Sheppard, L.D.; Vernon, P.A. Intelligence and speed of information-processing: A review of 50 years of research. Personal. Individ. Differ.
**2008**, 44, 535–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kranzler, J.H.; Jensen, A.R. The nature of psychometric g: Unitary process or a number of independent processes? Intelligence
**1991**, 15, 397–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Miller, L.T.; Vernon, P.A. Intelligence, reaction time, and working memory in 4- to 6-year-old children. Intelligence
**1996**, 22, 155–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Saccuzzo, D.P.; Larson, G.E.; Rimland, B. Speed of Information Processing and Individual Differences In Intelligence; Research Report NPRDC TR 86-23; Navy Personnel Research and Development Center: San Diego, CA, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Jensen, A.R. The importance of intraindividual variation in reaction time. Personal. Individ. Differ.
**1992**, 13, 869–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jensen, A.R. Clocking the Mind: Mental Chronometry and Individual Differences; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Doebler, P.; Scheffler, B. The relationship of choice reaction time variability and intelligence: A meta-analysis. Learn. Individ. Differ.
**2015**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Larson, G.E.; Alderton, D.L. Reaction time variability and intelligence: A “worst performance” analysis of individual differences. Intelligence
**1990**, 14, 309–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Coyle, T.R. A review of the worst performance rule: Evidence, theory, and alternative hypotheses. Intelligence
**2003**, 31, 567–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fernandez, S.; Fagot, D.; Dirk, J.; de Ribaupierre, A. Generalization of the worst performance rule across the lifespan. Intelligence
**2014**, 42, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Heathcote, A.; Popiel, S.J.; Mewhort, D.J. Analysis of response time distributions: An example using the Stroop task. Psychol. Bull.
**1991**, 109, 340–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Spieler, D.H.; Balota, D.A.; Faust, M.E. Levels of selective attention revealed through analyses of response time distributions. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.
**2000**, 26, 506–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Carroll, J.B. Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, G.A.; Carew, M. Decision time unmasked: Individuals adopt different strategies. Aust. J. Psychol.
**1987**, 39, 339–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ratcliff, R. A theory of memory retrieval. Psychol. Rev.
**1978**, 85, 59–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Voss, A.; Rothermund, K.; Voss, J. Interpreting the parameters of the diffusion model: An empirical validation. Memory Cogn.
**2004**, 32, 1206–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ratcliff, R.; Spieler, D.; McKoon, G. Explicitly modeling the effects of aging on response time. Psychon. Bull. Rev.
**2000**, 7, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Voss, A.; Nagler, M.; Lerche, V. Diffusion models in experimental psychology: A practical introduction. Exp. Psychol.
**2013**, 60, 385–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Voss, A.; Voss, J. Fast-dm: A free program for efficient diffusion model analysis. Behav. Res. Methods
**2007**, 39, 767–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Vandekerckhove, J.; Tuerlinckx, F. Fitting the Ratcliff diffusion model to experimental data. Psychon. Bull. Rev.
**2007**, 14, 1011–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Vandekerckhove, J.; Tuerlinckx, F. Diffusion model analysis with MATLAB: A DMAT primer. Behav. Res. Methods
**2008**, 40, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Wagenmakers, E.J.; van der Maas, H.L.J.; Grasman, R.P.P.P. An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy. Psychon. Bull. Rev.
**2007**, 14, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Nunez, M.D.; Srinivasan, R.; Vandekerckhove, J. Individual differences in attention influence perceptual decision making. Front. Psychol.
**2015**, 8, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Stahl, C.; Voss, A.; Schmitz, F.; Nuszbaum, M.; Tuscher, O.; Lieb, K.; Klauer, K.C. Behavioral components of impulsivity. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.
**2014**, 143, 850–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Ratcliff, R.; Thapar, A.; Mckoon, G. Individual differences, aging, and IQ in two-choice tasks. Cogn. Psychol.
**2010**, 60, 127–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Ratcliff, R.; Thapar, A.; Mckoon, G. Effects of aging and IQ on item and associative memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.
**2011**, 140, 464–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Schmiedek, F.; Oberauer, K.; Wilhelm, O.; Suss, H.M.; Wittmann, W.W. Individual differences in components of reaction time distributions and their relations to working memory and intelligence. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.
**2007**, 136, 414–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Schubert, A.L.; Hagemann, D.; Voss, A.; Schankin, A.; Bergmann, K. Decomposing the relationship between mental speed and mental abilities. Intelligence
**2015**, 51, 28–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ratcliff, R.; Thompson, C.A.; Mckoon, G. Modeling individual differences in response time and accuracy in numeracy. Cognition
**2015**, 137, 115–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Yap, M.J.; Balota, D.A.; Sibley, D.E.; Ratcliff, R. Individual differences in visual word recognition: Insights from the English Lexicon Project. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.
**2012**, 38, 53–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Ratcliff, R.; Mckoon, G. The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Comput.
**2008**, 20, 873–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Molenaar, D.; Tuerlinckx, F.; van der Maas, H.L.J. Fitting Diffusion Item Response Theory Models for Responses and Response Times Using the R Package diffIRT. J. Stat. Softw.
**2015**, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tuerlinckx, F.; Boeck, P.D. Two interpretations of the discrimination parameter. Psychometrika
**2005**, 70, 629–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Van der Maas, H.L.J.; Molenaar, D.; Maris, G.; Kievit, R.A.; Borsboom, D. Cognitive psychology meets psychometric theory: On the relation between process models for decision making and latent variable models for individual differences. Psychol. Rev.
**2011**, 118, 339–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Vandekerckhove, J. A cognitive latent variable model for the simultaneous analysis of behavioral and personality data. J. Math. Psychol.
**2014**, 60, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Allport, G.W. Personality, a Psychological Interpretation; Holt: New York, NY, USA, 1937. [Google Scholar]
- Cattell, R. Personality: A Systematic Theoretical and Factual Study; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1950. [Google Scholar]
- Steyer, R.; Schmitt, M.; Eid, M. Latent state–trait theory and research in personality and individual differences. Eur. J. Personal.
**1999**, 13, 389–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Langner, R.; Steinborn, M.B.; Chatterjee, A.; Sturm, W.; Willmes, K. Mental fatigue and temporal preparation in simple reaction-time performance. Acta Psychol.
**2010**, 133, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Doll, T.J. Motivation, reaction time, and the contents of active verbal memory. J. Exp. Psychol.
**1971**, 87, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Lerche, V.; Voss, A. Retest reliability of the parameters of the ratcliff diffusion model. Psychol. Res.
**2016**, 2016, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Larsen, L.; Hartmann, P.; Nyborg, H. The stability of general intelligence from early adulthood to middle-age. Intelligence
**2008**, 36, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hick, W.E. On the rate of gain of information. Q. J. Exp. Psychol.
**1952**, 4, 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Brown, S.D.; Heathcote, A. The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cogn. Psychol.
**2008**, 57, 153–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Usher, M.; McClelland, J.L. The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychol. Rev.
**2001**, 108, 550–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Leite, F.P.; Ratcliff, R. Modeling reaction time and accuracy of multiple-alternative decisions. Atten. Percept. Psychophys.
**2010**, 72, 246–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Sternberg, S. Memory-scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction-time experiments. Am. Sci.
**1969**, 57, 421–457. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] - Posner, M.I.; Mitchell, R.F. Chronometric analysis of classification. Psychol. Rev.
**1967**, 74, 392–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Steyer, R.; Ferring, D.; Schmitt, M.J. States and traits in psychological assessment. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess.
**1992**, 8, 79–98. [Google Scholar] - Steyer, R.; Mayer, A.; Geiser, C.; Cole, D.A. A theory of states and traits–revised. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol.
**2015**, 11, 71–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Danner, D.; Hagemann, D.; Schankin, A.; Hager, M.; Funke, J. Beyond IQ: A latent state-trait analysis of general intelligence, dynamic decision making, and implicit learning. Intelligence
**2011**, 39, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Deinzer, R.; Steyer, R.; Eid, M.; Notz, P.; Schwenkmezger, P.; Ostendorf, F.; Neubauer, A. Situational effects in trait assessment: The FPI, NEOFFI, and EPI questionnaires. Eur. J. Personal.
**1995**, 9, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Muthén, L.K.; Muthén, B.O. Mplus User’s Guide, 7th ed.; Muthén & Muthén: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1998–2012. [Google Scholar]
- Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociol. Methods Res.
**1992**, 21, 230–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model.
**1999**, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**A simplified illustration of the basic diffusion model. Information accumulation begins at the starting point z and continues with a mean drift rate v (affected by random noise) until one of two thresholds is hit. Boundary separation a represents the amount of information that has to be accumulated before a decision is made. Outside of the information accumulation process, non-decision time ${t}_{0}$ (not shown here) quantifies the time of non-decision processes such as stimulus encoding and response execution. This figure was inspired by the illustration of the diffusion model in Voss et al. [18].

**Figure 2.**The latent state-trait model of drift rate parameters consists of a common trait T, a state residual $S{R}_{i}$ for each of the two measurement occasions i, and a method factor ${M}_{j}$ for each of the three experimental tasks. CR2/4 = choice response time task with two/four alternatives; S1 = set size one; S3 = set size three; S5 = set size five; PI = physical identity; NI = name identity. Latent variables displayed in gray were non-significant.

**Figure 3.**Seperate LST models for the three parameters of the diffusion model: drift rate v, boundary separation a, and non-decision time ${t}_{0}$—estimated for each of the three tasks.

**Figure 4.**The latent state-trait model of boundary separation parameters consists of a common trait T, a state residual $S{R}_{i}$ for each of the two measurement occasions i, and a method factor ${M}_{j}$ for each of the three experimental tasks. CR2/4 = choice response time task with two/four alternatives; S1 = set size one; S3 = set size three; S5 = set size five; PI = physical identity; NI = name identity. Latent variables displayed in gray were non-significant.

**Figure 5.**The latent state-trait model of non-decision time parameters consists of a common trait T, a state residual $S{R}_{i}$ for each of the two measurement occasions i, and a method factor ${M}_{j}$ for each of the three experimental tasks. CR2/4 = choice response time task with two/four alternatives; S1 = set size one; S3 = set size three; S5 = set size five; PI = physical identity; NI = name identity. Latent variables displayed in gray were non-significant.

**Table 1.**Mean accuracies (ACC), mean RTs (RT), and mean diffusion model parameters (v, a, ${t}_{0}$, and $s{t}_{0}$) across conditions in the three response time tasks at both measurement occasions (SDs in parantheses).

Session 1 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

ACC | RT | v | a | ${t}_{0}$ | $s{t}_{0}$ | |

CR2 | 1.00 (.01) | 383.45 (58.08) | 5.55 (1.31) | 1.15 (0.26) | 0.27 (0.04) | 0.08 (0.04) |

CR4 | .98 (.02) | 479.92 (89.30) | 4.68 (1.30) | 1.18 (0.34) | 0.34 (0.06) | 0.15 (0.09) |

S1 | .98 (.02) | 585.07 (108.54) | 3.48 (1.15) | 1.63 (0.98) | 0.35 (0.08) | 0.13 (0.11) |

S3 | .98 (.02) | 719.53 (161.38) | 3.20 (1.04) | 1.63 (0.79) | 0.45 (0.09) | 0.16 (0.11) |

S5 | .96 (.03) | 878.86 (232.06) | 2.55 (0.79) | 1.73 (0.52) | 0.53 (0.13) | 0.21 (0.19) |

PI | .98 (.02) | 614.90 (88.35) | 4.00 (0.94) | 1.27 (0.25) | 0.45 (0.05) | 0.14 (0.06) |

NI | .97 (.02) | 699.66 (112.81) | 2.97 (0.70) | 1.46 (0.35) | 0.45 (0.05) | 0.14 (0.07) |

Session 2 | ||||||

ACC | RT | v | a | ${t}_{0}$ | $s{t}_{0}$ | |

CR2 | 1.00 (.01) | 381.26 (61.00) | 5.58 (1.56) | 1.14 (0.27) | 0.27 (0.03) | 0.08 (0.05) |

CR4 | .98 (.02) | 467.36 (85.75) | 4.72 (1.11) | 1.14 (0.32) | 0.34 (0.04) | 0.14 (0.06) |

S1 | .98 (.02) | 584.02 (135.64) | 3.65 (1.35) | 1.38 (0.41) | 0.36 (0.07) | 0.13 (0.10) |

S3 | .98 (.03) | 706.61 (176.81) | 3.24 (1.00) | 1.43 (0.35) | 0.47 (0.10) | 0.16 (0.11) |

S5 | .95 (.09) | 850.98 (223.18) | 2.52 (1.00) | 1.54 (0.48) | 0.53 (0.13) | 0.19 (0.15) |

PI | .98 (.02) | 605.19 (102.41) | 4.04 (1.06) | 1.33 (0.36) | 0.42 (0.05) | 0.12 (0.06) |

NI | .97 (.2) | 704.38 (126.36) | 3.10 (0.77) | 1.49 (0.38) | 0.45 (0.06) | 0.15 (0.08) |

**Table 2.**Latent state-trait theory parameters of diffusion model parameters. Occ. Spec. = Occasion-specificity; Meth. Spec. = Method-specificity.

Session | Consistency | Occ. Spec. | Meth. Spec. | Reliability | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |

Drift rate parameters | ||||||||

CR2 | .46 | .46 | .00 | .00 | .17 | .17 | .63 | .63 |

CR4 | .28 | .36 | .00 | .00 | .17 | .15 | .45 | .51 |

S1 | .34 | .42 | .00 | .00 | .11 | .10 | .45 | .52 |

S3 | .31 | .44 | .00 | .00 | .12 | .09 | .43 | .54 |

S5 | .28 | .36 | .00 | .00 | .11 | .10 | .38 | .45 |

PI | .53 | .52 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .53 | .52 |

NI | .66 | .69 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .66 | .69 |

Boundary separation parameters | ||||||||

CR2 | .14 | .14 | .00 | .00 | .20 | .20 | .35 | .35 |

CR4 | .38 | .33 | .00 | .00 | .17 | .19 | .55 | .52 |

S1 | .16 | .32 | .00 | .00 | .13 | .10 | .29 | .42 |

S3 | .06 | .30 | .00 | .00 | .13 | .10 | .20 | .40 |

S5 | .21 | .15 | .00 | .00 | .11 | .12 | .32 | .27 |

PI | .42 | .54 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .42 | .54 |

NI | .64 | .62 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .64 | .62 |

Non-decision time parameters | ||||||||

CR2 | .19 | .19 | .00 | .00 | .24 | .24 | .43 | .43 |

CR4 | .36 | .31 | .00 | .00 | .24 | .26 | .60 | .57 |

S1 | .14 | .31 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .14 | .31 |

S3 | .36 | .45 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .36 | .45 |

S5 | .43 | .43 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .43 | .43 |

PI | .60 | .54 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .60 | .54 |

NI | .41 | .34 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .41 | .34 |

**Table 3.**LST parameters for the LST models by task (see Figure 3). Cond. = Condition; Occ. Spec. = Occasion-specificity; Meth. Spec. = Method-specificity; Rel. = Reliability; Boundary sep. = Boundary separation; Non-dec. time = Non-decision time.

Task | dm Parameter | Cond. | MP | Cons. | O. Spec. | M. Spec | Rel. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

CRT | Drift rate v | CR2 | 1 | .53 | .00 | .15 | .68 |

CR4 | 1 | .51 | .00 | .00 | .51 | ||

CR2 | 2 | .53 | .00 | .15 | .68 | ||

CR4 | 2 | .51 | .00 | .00 | .51 | ||

Boundary sep. a | CR2 | 1 | .43 | .00 | .00 | .43 | |

CR4 | 1 | .43 | .00 | .00 | .43 | ||

CR2 | 2 | .43 | .00 | .00 | .43 | ||

CR4 | 2 | .43 | .00 | .00 | .43 | ||

Non-dec. time ${t}_{0}$ | CR2 | 1 | .38 | .14 | .18 | .70 | |

CR4 | 1 | .39 | .15 | .25 | .79 | ||

CR2 | 2 | .37 | .16 | .18 | .71 | ||

CR4 | 2 | .38 | .16 | .25 | .79 | ||

Sternberg | Drift rate v | S1 | 1 | .46 | .00 | .11 | .57 |

S3 | 1 | .47 | .00 | .00 | .47 | ||

S5 | 1 | .42 | .00 | .15 | .57 | ||

S1 | 2 | .46 | .00 | .11 | .57 | ||

S3 | 2 | .47 | .00 | .00 | .47 | ||

S5 | 2 | .42 | .00 | .15 | .57 | ||

Boundary sep. a | S1 | 1 | .31 | .00 | .00 | .31 | |

S3 | 1 | .30 | .00 | .00 | .30 | ||

S5 | 1 | .30 | .00 | .00 | .30 | ||

S1 | 2 | .31 | .00 | .00 | .31 | ||

S3 | 2 | .30 | .00 | .00 | .30 | ||

S5 | 2 | .30 | .00 | .00 | .30 | ||

Non-dec. time ${t}_{0}$ | S1 | 1 | .31 | .00 | .00 | .31 | |

S3 | 1 | .34 | .00 | .00 | .34 | ||

S5 | 1 | .35 | .00 | .00 | .35 | ||

S1 | 2 | .31 | .00 | .00 | .31 | ||

S3 | 2 | .34 | .00 | .00 | .34 | ||

S5 | 2 | .35 | .00 | .00 | .35 | ||

Posner | Drift rate v | PI | 1 | .58 | .00 | .00 | .58 |

NI | 1 | .57 | .00 | .16 | .72 | ||

PI | 2 | .58 | .00 | .00 | .58 | ||

NI | 2 | .57 | .00 | .16 | .72 | ||

Boundary sep. a | PI | 1 | .55 | .00 | .00 | .55 | |

NI | 1 | .57 | .00 | .00 | .57 | ||

PI | 2 | .55 | .00 | .00 | .55 | ||

NI | 2 | .57 | .00 | .00 | .57 | ||

Non-dec. time ${t}_{0}$ | PI | 1 | .44 | .16 | .00 | .60 | |

NI | 1 | .39 | .14 | .00 | .54 | ||

PI | 2 | .52 | .00 | .00 | .52 | ||

NI | 2 | .46 | .00 | .00 | .46 |

© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Schubert, A.-L.; Frischkorn, G.T.; Hagemann, D.; Voss, A.
Trait Characteristics of Diffusion Model Parameters. *J. Intell.* **2016**, *4*, 7.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence4030007

**AMA Style**

Schubert A-L, Frischkorn GT, Hagemann D, Voss A.
Trait Characteristics of Diffusion Model Parameters. *Journal of Intelligence*. 2016; 4(3):7.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence4030007

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Schubert, Anna-Lena, Gidon T. Frischkorn, Dirk Hagemann, and Andreas Voss.
2016. "Trait Characteristics of Diffusion Model Parameters" *Journal of Intelligence* 4, no. 3: 7.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence4030007