从埃里克森侧翼任务中得出的漂移-扩散模型参数的心理测量学:两个独立样本的可靠性和有效性。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Brent Ian Rappaport, Stewart A Shankman, James E Glazer, Savannah N Buchanan, Anna Weinberg, Allison M Letkiewicz
{"title":"从埃里克森侧翼任务中得出的漂移-扩散模型参数的心理测量学:两个独立样本的可靠性和有效性。","authors":"Brent Ian Rappaport, Stewart A Shankman, James E Glazer, Savannah N Buchanan, Anna Weinberg, Allison M Letkiewicz","doi":"10.3758/s13415-024-01222-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The flanker task is a widely used measure of cognitive control abilities. Drift-diffusion modeling of flanker task behavior can yield separable parameters of cognitive control-related subprocesses, but the parameters' psychometrics are not well-established. We examined the reliability and validity of four behavioral measures: (1) raw accuracy, (2) reaction time (RT) interference, (3) NIH Toolbox flanker score, and (4) two drift-diffusion model (DDM) parameters-drift rate and boundary separation-capturing evidence accumulation efficiency and speed-accuracy trade-off, respectively. Participants from two independent studies - one cross-sectional (N = 381) and one with three timepoints (N = 83) - completed the flanker task while electroencephalography data were collected. Across both studies, drift rate and boundary separation demonstrated comparable split-half and test-retest reliability to accuracy, RT interference, and NIH Toolbox flanker score, but better incremental convergent validity with psychophysiological measures (i.e., the error-related negativity; ERN) and neuropsychological measures of cognitive control than the other behavioral indices. Greater drift rate (i.e., faster and more accurate responses) to congruent and incongruent stimuli, and smaller boundary separation to incongruent stimuli were related to 1) larger ERN amplitudes (in both studies) and 2) faster and more accurate inhibition and set-shifting over and above raw accuracy, reaction time, and NIH Toolbox flanker scores (in Study 1). Computational models, such as DDM, can parse behavioral performance into subprocesses that exhibit comparable reliability to other scoring approaches, but more meaningful relationships with other measures of cognitive control. The application of these computational models may be applied to existing data and enhance the identification of cognitive control deficits in psychiatric disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":50672,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychometrics of drift-diffusion model parameters derived from the Eriksen flanker task: Reliability and validity in two independent samples.\",\"authors\":\"Brent Ian Rappaport, Stewart A Shankman, James E Glazer, Savannah N Buchanan, Anna Weinberg, Allison M Letkiewicz\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13415-024-01222-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The flanker task is a widely used measure of cognitive control abilities. Drift-diffusion modeling of flanker task behavior can yield separable parameters of cognitive control-related subprocesses, but the parameters' psychometrics are not well-established. We examined the reliability and validity of four behavioral measures: (1) raw accuracy, (2) reaction time (RT) interference, (3) NIH Toolbox flanker score, and (4) two drift-diffusion model (DDM) parameters-drift rate and boundary separation-capturing evidence accumulation efficiency and speed-accuracy trade-off, respectively. Participants from two independent studies - one cross-sectional (N = 381) and one with three timepoints (N = 83) - completed the flanker task while electroencephalography data were collected. Across both studies, drift rate and boundary separation demonstrated comparable split-half and test-retest reliability to accuracy, RT interference, and NIH Toolbox flanker score, but better incremental convergent validity with psychophysiological measures (i.e., the error-related negativity; ERN) and neuropsychological measures of cognitive control than the other behavioral indices. Greater drift rate (i.e., faster and more accurate responses) to congruent and incongruent stimuli, and smaller boundary separation to incongruent stimuli were related to 1) larger ERN amplitudes (in both studies) and 2) faster and more accurate inhibition and set-shifting over and above raw accuracy, reaction time, and NIH Toolbox flanker scores (in Study 1). Computational models, such as DDM, can parse behavioral performance into subprocesses that exhibit comparable reliability to other scoring approaches, but more meaningful relationships with other measures of cognitive control. The application of these computational models may be applied to existing data and enhance the identification of cognitive control deficits in psychiatric disorders.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-024-01222-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-024-01222-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

侧翼任务是一种广泛使用的认知控制能力测量方法。侧手任务行为的漂移-扩散模型可以得出认知控制相关子过程的可分离参数,但这些参数的心理测量学尚未得到充分证实。我们研究了四种行为测量的可靠性和有效性:(1)原始准确度;(2)反应时间(RT)干扰;(3)NIH 工具箱侧翼得分;(4)两个漂移-扩散模型(DDM)参数--漂移率和边界分离--分别用于捕捉证据积累效率和速度-准确度权衡。两项独立研究(一项横断面研究(381 人)和一项有三个时间点的研究(83 人))的参与者在收集脑电图数据的同时完成了侧翼任务。在这两项研究中,漂移率和边界分离与准确性、RT 干扰和 NIH 工具箱侧手翻得分相比,具有相似的分半和重复测试可靠性,但与心理生理学测量(即错误相关负性;ERN)和认知控制神经心理学测量相比,具有更好的增量收敛有效性。对相同和不相同刺激的更大漂移率(即更快、更准确的反应)以及对不相同刺激的更小边界分离与以下两个因素有关:1)更大的ERN振幅(在两项研究中);2)更快、更准确的抑制和集合转移,而不是原始准确性、反应时间和NIH工具箱侧翼得分(在研究1中)。DDM 等计算模型可将行为表现解析为子过程,其可靠性与其他评分方法相当,但与其他认知控制测量的关系更有意义。这些计算模型可应用于现有数据,并加强对精神疾病认知控制缺陷的识别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Psychometrics of drift-diffusion model parameters derived from the Eriksen flanker task: Reliability and validity in two independent samples.

The flanker task is a widely used measure of cognitive control abilities. Drift-diffusion modeling of flanker task behavior can yield separable parameters of cognitive control-related subprocesses, but the parameters' psychometrics are not well-established. We examined the reliability and validity of four behavioral measures: (1) raw accuracy, (2) reaction time (RT) interference, (3) NIH Toolbox flanker score, and (4) two drift-diffusion model (DDM) parameters-drift rate and boundary separation-capturing evidence accumulation efficiency and speed-accuracy trade-off, respectively. Participants from two independent studies - one cross-sectional (N = 381) and one with three timepoints (N = 83) - completed the flanker task while electroencephalography data were collected. Across both studies, drift rate and boundary separation demonstrated comparable split-half and test-retest reliability to accuracy, RT interference, and NIH Toolbox flanker score, but better incremental convergent validity with psychophysiological measures (i.e., the error-related negativity; ERN) and neuropsychological measures of cognitive control than the other behavioral indices. Greater drift rate (i.e., faster and more accurate responses) to congruent and incongruent stimuli, and smaller boundary separation to incongruent stimuli were related to 1) larger ERN amplitudes (in both studies) and 2) faster and more accurate inhibition and set-shifting over and above raw accuracy, reaction time, and NIH Toolbox flanker scores (in Study 1). Computational models, such as DDM, can parse behavioral performance into subprocesses that exhibit comparable reliability to other scoring approaches, but more meaningful relationships with other measures of cognitive control. The application of these computational models may be applied to existing data and enhance the identification of cognitive control deficits in psychiatric disorders.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
3.40%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience (CABN) offers theoretical, review, and primary research articles on behavior and brain processes in humans. Coverage includes normal function as well as patients with injuries or processes that influence brain function: neurological disorders, including both healthy and disordered aging; and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and depression. CABN is the leading vehicle for strongly psychologically motivated studies of brain–behavior relationships, through the presentation of papers that integrate psychological theory and the conduct and interpretation of the neuroscientific data. The range of topics includes perception, attention, memory, language, problem solving, reasoning, and decision-making; emotional processes, motivation, reward prediction, and affective states; and individual differences in relevant domains, including personality. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience is a publication of the Psychonomic Society.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信