A diffusion-based framework for modeling systematic, time-varying cognitive processes.
Manikya Alister & Nathan J. Evans
Abstract
As people engage in tasks over extended periods, their psychological states change systematically due to factors such as practice, learning, and/or boredom. However, the dominant frameworks for modeling cognitive processes, such as evidence accumulation models, only consider a single estimate of a process across the duration of an experiment. Our study describes, develops, and assesses the ParAcT-DDM framework: the Parameters Across Time Diffusion Decision Model, which unifies previous modeling efforts from practice and decision-making research. Specifically, our framework models time-varying changes to diffusion decision model parameters by assuming that rather than being constant across time, their estimates follow theoretically informed time-varying (e.g., trial-varying or block-varying) functions. Focusing on two diffusion model parameters: drift rate (task efficiency) and threshold (caution), our empirical results show that ParAcT-DDM variants vastly outperform the standard diffusion model in four existing data sets, including one where participants completed a practice block before data recording began, suggesting that time-varying cognitive processes often occur in typical cognitive experiments, even when the experimental design explicitly tries to remove practice effects. Finally, we find that the existence of time-varying processes causes systematic biases in the parameter estimates of the standard diffusion model, suggesting that our ParAcT-DDM framework can be crucial to ensuring the robustness of inferences against time-varying changes, regardless of whether these changes are of direct interest. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
1 citation
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06 |
| M · momentum | 0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.