A spiking neural model of decision making and the speed–accuracy trade-off.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The speed-accuracy trade-off (SAT) is the tendency for fast decisions to come at the expense of accurate performance. Evidence accumulation models such as the drift diffusion model can reproduce a variety of behavioral data related to the SAT, and their parameters have been linked to neural activities in the brain. However, our understanding of how biological neural networks realize the associated cognitive operations remains incomplete, limiting our ability to unify neurological and computational accounts of the SAT. We address this gap by developing and analyzing a biologically plausible spiking neural network that extends the drift diffusion approach. We apply our model to both perceptual and nonperceptual tasks, investigate several contextual manipulations, and validate model performance using neural and behavioral data. Behaviorally, we find that our model (a) reproduces individual response time distributions; (b) generalizes across experimental contexts, including the number of choice alternatives, speed- or accuracy-emphasis, and task difficulty; and (c) predicts accuracy data, despite being fit only to response time data. Neurally, we show that our model (a) recreates observed patterns of spiking neural activity and (b) captures age-related deficits that are consistent with the behavioral data. More broadly, our model exhibits the SAT across a variety of tasks and contexts and explains how individual differences in speed and accuracy arise from synaptic weights within a spiking neural network. Our work showcases a method for translating mathematical models into functional neural networks and demonstrates that simulating such networks permits analyses and predictions that are outside the scope of purely mathematical models. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".