Impact Factor 3.648 | CiteScore 3.99
More on impact ›


Front. Neurosci. | doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.01211

The interaction between elapsed time and decision accuracy differs between humans and rats

  • 1University of California, San Diego, United States

A stochastic visual motion discrimination task is widely used to study rapid decision-making in humans and animals. Among trials of the same sensory difficulty within a block of fixed decision strategy, humans and monkeys are widely reported to make more errors in the individual trials with longer reaction times. This finding has posed a challenge for the drift-diffusion model of sensory decision-making, which in its basic form predicts that errors and correct responses should have the same reaction time distributions. We previously reported that rats also violate this model prediction, but in the opposite direction: for rats, motion discrimination accuracy was highest in the trials with the longest reaction times. To rule out task differences as the cause of our divergent finding in rats, the present study tested humans and rats using the same task and analyzed their data identically. We confirmed that rats’ accuracy increased with reaction time, whereas humans’ accuracy decreased with reaction time in the same task. These results were further verified using a new temporally-local analysis method, ruling out that the observed trend was an artifact of non-stationarity in the data of either species. The main effect was found whether the signal strength (motion coherence) was varied in randomly interleaved trials or held constant within a block. The magnitude of the effects increased with motion coherence. These results provide new constraints useful for refining and discriminating among the many alternative mathematical theories of decision-making.

Keywords: Decision Making, Drift diffusion model (DDM), Diffusion to Bound (DTB), rodent vision, rat vision, random dot motion task, Motion Perception, perceptual decision making, Kinematogram, speed accuracy trade off

Received: 17 Aug 2019; Accepted: 28 Oct 2019.


* Correspondence: PhD. Pamela Reinagel, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, 92093, California, United States,