A Bayesian Mixture Modelling of Stop Signal Reaction Time Distributions: The Second Contextual Solution for the Problem of Aftereffects of Inhibition on SSRT Estimations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distribution of single Stop Signal Reaction Times (SSRT) in the stop signal task (SST) has been modelled with two general methods: a nonparametric method by Hans Colonius (1990) and a Bayesian parametric method by Dora Matzke, Gordon Logan and colleagues (2013). These methods assume an equal impact of the preceding trial type (go/stop) in the SST trials on the SSRT distributional estimation without addressing the relaxed assumption. This study presents the required model by considering a two-state mixture model for the SSRT distribution. It then compares the Bayesian parametric single SSRT and mixture SSRT distributions in the usual stochastic order at the individual and the population level under ex-Gaussian (ExG) distributional format. It shows that compared to a single SSRT distribution, the mixture SSRT distribution is more varied, more positively skewed, more leptokurtic and larger in stochastic order. The size of the results' disparities also depends on the choice of weights in the mixture SSRT distribution. This study confirms that mixture SSRT indices as a constant or distribution are significantly larger than their single SSRT counterparts in the related order. This result offers a vital improvement in the SSRT estimations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".