The importance of urgency in decision making based on dynamic information
Fig 5
Model simulations for different trial types.
(A) Distributions of DTs for ambiguous, easy, bias-for, and bias-against trials in real and simulated data in the all-stay condition. Inset panel, Cumulative distributions of SPs for each trial type. Differences in DTs and SPs in ambiguous and easy trials are fitted correctly by the EAM and the UGM (paired-samples t-test, ** p < 0.01). Lack of difference in DTs and SPs in bias-for and bias-against trials is only fitted by the UGM (paired-samples t-test, ** p < 0.01, ns: not significant). Dashed lines indicate the mean of the distributions. Green rectangle shows the results that are consistent with the real data. (B) Same conventions as in (A) for the all-away condition with simulations performed without and with leakage in the sensory evidence. Differences between DTs and SPs in easy and ambiguous trials are fitted correctly by the EAM and the UGM without and with sensory leakage (paired-samples t-test, ** p < 0.01). Longer DTs and higher SPs in bias-for than in bias-against trials are only correctly fitted by the UGM when sensory evidence leaks away (paired-samples t-test, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ns: not significant).