@brainpilot/skills 0.0.6

package/skills/03_Cognitive_Psychology/evidence-accumulation-selector/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,310 @@
+---
+name: "evidence-accumulation-selector"
+description: "Advises on when to use DDM vs. LBA vs. race models for choice-RT data based on experimental design and research goals"
+domain: "cognitive-psychology"
+version: "1.0.0"
+authors:
+ - "Claude (AI-assisted)"
+papers:
+ - "Ratcliff, 1978"
+ - "Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008"
+ - "Brown & Heathcote, 2008"
+ - "Wagenmakers et al., 2007"
+ - "Donkin et al., 2011"
+dependencies:
+ required:
+ - research-literacy
+review_status: "ai-generated"
+---
+
+# Evidence Accumulation Model Selector
+
+## Purpose
+
+This skill encodes expert knowledge for selecting among evidence accumulation models (EAMs) when analyzing choice response-time (RT) data. A competent programmer without cognitive science training would typically analyze only mean RT and accuracy separately, missing the critical insight that RT distributions and speed-accuracy tradeoffs carry rich information about latent cognitive processes. Selecting the wrong EAM -- or applying one when the data violate its assumptions -- leads to uninterpretable or misleading parameter estimates.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Use this skill when:
+
+- You have choice-time data (both accuracy and full RT distributions, not just means)
+- You want to decompose observed performance into latent cognitive processes (evidence quality, response caution, non-decision time)
+- You need to distinguish speed-accuracy tradeoff effects from genuine sensitivity changes
+- You are deciding which model class (DDM, LBA, EZ-diffusion, race model) is appropriate for your experimental design
+
+Do **not** use this skill when:
+
+- You only have accuracy data without RTs (use signal detection theory instead)
+- RTs are from simple detection (single response option) rather than choice tasks
+- The task involves continuous tracking or free response without discrete choice points
+
+## Research Planning Protocol
+
+Before executing the domain-specific steps below, you MUST:
+
+1. **State the research question** -- What specific question is this analysis/paradigm addressing?
+2. **Justify the method choice** -- Why is this approach appropriate? What alternatives were considered?
+3. **Declare expected outcomes** -- What results would support vs. refute the hypothesis?
+4. **Note assumptions and limitations** -- What does this method assume? Where could it mislead?
+5. **Present the plan to the user and WAIT for confirmation** before proceeding.
+
+For detailed methodology guidance, see the `research-literacy` skill.
+
+
+## ⚠️ Verification Notice
+
+This skill was generated by AI from academic literature. All parameters, thresholds, and citations require independent verification before use in research. If you find errors, please [open an issue](https://github.com/HaoxuanLiTHUAI/awesome_cognitive_and_neuroscience_skills/issues).
+
+## Core Concepts: What EAMs Do
+
+All evidence accumulation models share a common framework: on each trial, noisy evidence is accumulated over time until a decision boundary is reached, triggering a response. The models differ in their assumptions about accumulation architecture.
+
+### Key Parameters Across Models
+
+| Parameter | Cognitive Interpretation | Typical Manipulation |
+|-----------|------------------------|---------------------|
+| **Drift rate (v)** | Quality/rate of evidence extraction | Stimulus difficulty, S/N ratio (Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008) |
+| **Boundary separation (a)** | Speed-accuracy tradeoff / response caution | Speed vs. accuracy instructions (Ratcliff & Rouder, 1998) |
+| **Non-decision time (Ter / t0)** | Encoding + motor execution time | Response modality, stimulus quality (Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008) |
+| **Starting point (z)** | Prior bias toward one response | Prior probability, payoff asymmetry (Ratcliff, 1985) |
+| **Drift rate variability (eta/sv)** | Across-trial variability in evidence quality | Individual or item differences (Ratcliff, 1978) |
+| **Non-decision time variability (st0)** | Variability in encoding/motor processes | (Ratcliff & Tuerlinckx, 2002) |
+
+## Decision Tree: Selecting a Model
+
+```
+How many response alternatives does the task have?
+|
++-- TWO alternatives
+| |
+| +-- Do you need full distributional analysis?
+| | |
+| | +-- YES --> Do you have sufficient trial counts (>50/condition)?
+| | | |
+| | | +-- YES --> Use the FULL DIFFUSION MODEL (DDM)
+| | | | (Ratcliff, 1978; Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008)
+| | | |
+| | | +-- NO (fewer trials) --> Use EZ-DIFFUSION
+| | | (Wagenmakers et al., 2007)
+| | |
+| | +-- NO (means/summaries sufficient)
+| | --> Use EZ-DIFFUSION for simplicity
+| | (Wagenmakers et al., 2007)
+| |
+| +-- Is response bias (starting point) a key research question?
+| |
+| +-- YES --> Use FULL DDM with z parameter free
+| | (Ratcliff, 1985; White & Poldrack, 2014)
+| |
+| +-- NO --> DDM with z fixed at a/2 (unbiased)
+|
++-- MORE THAN TWO alternatives
+| |
+| +-- Use the LINEAR BALLISTIC ACCUMULATOR (LBA)
+| | (Brown & Heathcote, 2008)
+| | or RACING DIFFUSION MODEL
+| | (Tillman et al., 2020)
+| |
+| +-- Do accumulators need to be independent?
+| |
+| +-- YES --> LBA (independent accumulators by design)
+| |
+| +-- NO (competition matters) --> Racing diffusion
+| or leaky competing accumulator (LCA; Usher & McClelland, 2001)
+|
++-- SPECIAL CASES
+ |
+ +-- Extremely fast RTs (<200 ms median)?
+ | --> EAMs are likely inappropriate; these may be anticipatory
+ | responses (Luce, 1986)
+ |
+ +-- No speed pressure at all (untimed)?
+ | --> EAMs are inappropriate; use accuracy-based models
+ |
+ +-- Go/no-go task?
+ --> Use the DDM with absorbing boundary modifications
+ or the SSRT framework (Verbruggen & Logan, 2008)
+```
+
+## Model Descriptions
+
+### Drift Diffusion Model (DDM)
+
+The canonical EAM for two-choice tasks (Ratcliff, 1978; Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008).
+
+**Architecture**: A single accumulator drifts between two absorbing boundaries. Evidence for option A moves the process toward the upper boundary; evidence for option B moves it toward the lower boundary.
+
+**Full DDM parameters** (7 parameters; Ratcliff & Tuerlinckx, 2002):
+
+| Parameter | Symbol | Typical Range | Role |
+|-----------|--------|---------------|------|
+| Drift rate | v | -5 to 5 (Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008) | Evidence quality |
+| Boundary separation | a | 0.5 to 2.5 (Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008) | Response caution |
+| Non-decision time | Ter | 0.1 to 0.5 s (Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008) | Encoding + motor |
+| Starting point | z | 0 to a (typically a/2) | Prior bias |
+| Drift variability | eta (sv) | 0 to 2 (Ratcliff, 1978) | Cross-trial drift noise |
+| Starting point variability | sz | 0 to a | Cross-trial bias noise |
+| Non-decision variability | st0 | 0 to 0.3 s | Cross-trial Ter noise |
+
+**When to use DDM**:
+- Two-choice tasks with speed-accuracy tradeoff
+- At least **40-50 trials per condition** for the full model (Ratcliff & Childers, 2015), though **200+ recommended** for stable individual parameter estimates (Lerche et al., 2017)
+- RTs in the typical range: **200 ms to 2000 ms** (Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008)
+
+**Key assumption**: Only two response options. The DDM cannot natively handle >2 choices.
+
+### EZ-Diffusion
+
+A simplified closed-form estimator for three DDM parameters (Wagenmakers et al., 2007).
+
+**Estimated parameters**: v (drift rate), a (boundary separation), Ter (non-decision time).
+
+**Input**: Only three summary statistics per condition -- mean RT for correct responses (MRT), variance of RT for correct responses (VRT), and accuracy (Pc).
+
+**Closed-form equations** (Wagenmakers et al., 2007, Eq. 1-3; see `references/ez-diffusion-formulas.md`):
+
+**When to use EZ-diffusion**:
+- Quick exploration before committing to full DDM fitting
+- Low trial counts where full DDM is unstable (as few as **~10 trials per condition**; Wagenmakers et al., 2007)
+- When only summary-level data are available (e.g., published means and variances)
+- When the research question does not require starting point bias or cross-trial variability parameters
+
+**Limitations**:
+- Assumes no starting point variability (sz = 0) and no cross-trial drift variability (sv = 0)
+- Cannot estimate response bias
+- The "edge correction" is needed when accuracy is 0.5 or 1.0 (Wagenmakers et al., 2007)
+
+### Linear Ballistic Accumulator (LBA)
+
+A multi-alternative accumulator model (Brown & Heathcote, 2008).
+
+**Architecture**: N independent linear accumulators (one per response option) race to a common threshold. The first accumulator to reach threshold triggers the corresponding response. Accumulation is ballistic (no within-trial noise) -- all variability comes from across-trial variation in drift rates and starting points.
+
+**Parameters per accumulator** (Brown & Heathcote, 2008):
+
+| Parameter | Symbol | Role |
+|-----------|--------|------|
+| Mean drift rate | vi | Evidence accumulation rate for option i |
+| Drift rate variability | s | Across-trial standard deviation of drift (often fixed to 1 for scaling) |
+| Response threshold | b | Evidence needed to trigger response |
+| Maximum starting point | A | Upper bound of uniform start-point distribution [0, A] |
+| Non-decision time | t0 | Encoding + motor time |
+
+**When to use LBA**:
+- Tasks with **2 or more** response alternatives (Brown & Heathcote, 2008)
+- When you need a mathematically tractable multi-choice model
+- When accumulators can be assumed independent (no lateral inhibition)
+- Minimum **~100 trials per condition** recommended (Donkin et al., 2011)
+
+### Race Models
+
+**Classical race model** (Pike, 1966; Townsend & Ashby, 1983): Multiple accumulators race independently; first to finish wins. Unlike DDM, there is no competition between accumulators.
+
+**When to use**:
+- As a baseline/null model to test against more complex models
+- When inhibitory competition between responses is not theoretically expected
+
+**Limitation**: The standard race model cannot account for speed-accuracy tradeoff without additional assumptions (Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008).
+
+## Model Comparison Methods
+
+When comparing model fits, use information criteria that penalize complexity:
+
+| Method | When to Use | Citation |
+|--------|-------------|----------|
+| **BIC** | Frequentist model comparison; favors parsimony; appropriate for large N | Schwarz, 1978 |
+| **AIC** | Less conservative than BIC; better for prediction | Akaike, 1974 |
+| **DIC** | Bayesian hierarchical models (e.g., HDDM) | Spiegelhalter et al., 2002 |
+| **WAIC** | Bayesian; more stable than DIC for hierarchical models | Watanabe, 2010 |
+| **Bayes factor** | Direct comparison of model evidence; interpretable strength | Kass & Raftery, 1995 |
+
+**Preferred approach**: Fit competing models and compare using WAIC or Bayes factors in a Bayesian framework (Annis et al., 2017). Lower WAIC = better fit.
+
+## Parameter Recovery Check
+
+Before interpreting fitted parameters, **always** conduct a parameter recovery study (Heathcote et al., 2015):
+
+1. Simulate data from known parameter values matching your design
+2. Fit the model to simulated data
+3. Check that recovered parameters correlate highly (r > 0.90) with generating parameters
+4. If recovery fails, the model is too complex for your data or trial counts are insufficient
+
+## Software Recommendations
+
+| Software | Model | Language | Citation |
+|----------|-------|----------|----------|
+| **HDDM** | DDM (hierarchical Bayesian) | Python | Wiecki et al., 2013 |
+| **fast-dm** | DDM (frequentist, fast) | C / R wrapper | Voss & Voss, 2007 |
+| **EZ-diffusion** | EZ | R / any | Wagenmakers et al., 2007 |
+| **rtdists** | DDM, LBA | R | Singmann et al., 2016 |
+| **PyDDM** | DDM (flexible extensions) | Python | Shinn et al., 2020 |
+| **DMC** | LBA, DDM, racing diffusion | R | Heathcote et al., 2019 |
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+1. **Analyzing mean RT only**: Mean RT conflates drift rate, boundary separation, and non-decision time. Two conditions with identical mean RTs can have very different latent processes (Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008).
+
+2. **Applying DDM to >2-choice tasks**: The standard DDM is defined for two-choice tasks only. For 3+ alternatives, use LBA, racing diffusion, or the multi-alternative DDM extension (Ratcliff & Starns, 2013).
+
+3. **Insufficient trial counts**: The full DDM requires at least **40-50 trials per condition** for group-level estimates and **200+ for stable individual estimates** (Ratcliff & Childers, 2015; Lerche et al., 2017). With fewer trials, use EZ-diffusion or hierarchical Bayesian fitting.
+
+4. **Ignoring RT distribution shape**: EAMs predict specific distributional forms (right-skewed). If your RT distribution is bimodal or has a long left tail, check for contaminant processes (e.g., fast guesses) before fitting (Ratcliff & Tuerlinckx, 2002).
+
+5. **Not trimming outlier RTs**: Extremely fast (<200 ms) or slow (>3000 ms for speeded tasks) RTs likely reflect processes outside the model. Standard practice: trim RTs below **200 ms** and above a task-appropriate upper bound (Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008).
+
+6. **Fitting too many free parameters**: The full 7-parameter DDM is often overparameterized. Fix parameters that are not theoretically relevant (e.g., fix sz = 0 and st0 = 0 as a starting point; Ratcliff & Childers, 2015).
+
+7. **Confusing EZ-diffusion limitations**: EZ-diffusion assumes no across-trial variability in drift or starting point. If your design manipulates prior probability (affecting starting point bias), EZ cannot capture this (Wagenmakers et al., 2007).
+
+8. **Skipping parameter recovery**: Without recovery checks, you cannot know whether your data are informative for the parameters you want to interpret (Heathcote et al., 2015).
+
+## Minimum Reporting Checklist
+
+Based on Dutilh et al. (2019) and current best practices:
+
+- [ ] Model selected and justification (why DDM vs. LBA vs. EZ)
+- [ ] Number of trials per condition per participant
+- [ ] RT trimming criteria and percentage of data excluded
+- [ ] Complete list of free vs. fixed parameters with rationale
+- [ ] Fitting method (MLE, chi-square, Bayesian) and software (with version)
+- [ ] Model fit assessment (quantile probability plots, AIC/BIC/WAIC)
+- [ ] Parameter recovery results (simulated data check)
+- [ ] All parameter estimates with uncertainty (SE or credible intervals)
+- [ ] Model comparison results if multiple models were fit
+- [ ] Diagnostic plots: observed vs. predicted RT quantiles (0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9) for correct and error responses
+
+## References
+
+- Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*, 19, 716-723.
+- Annis, J., Miller, B. J., & Palmeri, T. J. (2017). Bayesian inference with Stan: A tutorial on adding custom distributions. *Behavior Research Methods*, 49, 863-886.
+- Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation. *Cognitive Psychology*, 57, 153-178.
+- Donkin, C., Averell, L., Brown, S., & Heathcote, A. (2011). Getting more from accuracy and response time data: Methods for fitting the linear ballistic accumulator. *Behavior Research Methods*, 43, 332-343.
+- Dutilh, G., et al. (2019). The quality of response time data inference: A blinded, collaborative assessment of the validity of cognitive models. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review*, 26, 1051-1069.
+- Heathcote, A., Brown, S. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2015). An introduction to good practices in cognitive modeling. In B. U. Forstmann & E.-J. Wagenmakers (Eds.), *An introduction to model-based cognitive neuroscience*. New York: Springer.
+- Heathcote, A., Lin, Y.-S., Reynolds, A., Strickland, L., Gretton, M., & Matzke, D. (2019). Dynamic models of choice. *Behavior Research Methods*, 51, 961-985.
+- Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayes factors. *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, 90, 773-795.
+- Lerche, V., Voss, A., & Nagler, M. (2017). How many trials are required for parameter estimation in diffusion modeling? *Behavior Research Methods*, 49, 513-537.
+- Luce, R. D. (1986). *Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization*. New York: Oxford University Press.
+- Pike, R. (1966). Stochastic models of choice behaviour: Response probabilities and latencies of finite Markov chain systems. *British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology*, 19, 15-32.
+- Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. *Psychological Review*, 85, 59-108.
+- Ratcliff, R. (1985). Theoretical interpretations of the speed and accuracy of positive and negative responses. *Psychological Review*, 92, 212-225.
+- Ratcliff, R., & Childers, R. (2015). Individual differences and fitting methods for the two-choice diffusion model of decision making. *Decision*, 2, 237-279.
+- Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. *Neural Computation*, 20, 873-922.
+- Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. N. (1998). Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. *Psychological Science*, 9, 347-356.
+- Ratcliff, R., & Starns, J. J. (2013). Modeling response times, accuracy, and confidence in two-choice tasks. *Psychological Review*, 120, 510-560.
+- Ratcliff, R., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2002). Estimating parameters of the diffusion model. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review*, 9, 438-481.
+- Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. *Annals of Statistics*, 6, 461-464.
+- Shinn, M., Lam, N. H., & Murray, J. D. (2020). A flexible framework for simulating and fitting generalized drift-diffusion models. *eLife*, 9, e56938.
+- Singmann, H., Brown, S., Gretton, M., & Heathcote, A. (2016). rtdists: Response time distributions. R package.
+- Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., & van der Linde, A. (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. *Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B*, 64, 583-639.
+- Tillman, G., Van Zandt, T., & Logan, G. D. (2020). Sequential sampling models without random between-trial variability: The racing diffusion model with its competing risks. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review*, 27, 1170-1190.
+- Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). *Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes*. Cambridge University Press.
+- Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2001). The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model. *Psychological Review*, 108, 550-592.
+- Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2008). Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, 12, 418-424.
+- Voss, A., & Voss, J. (2007). Fast-dm: A free program for efficient diffusion model analysis. *Behavior Research Methods*, 39, 767-775.
+- Wagenmakers, E.-J., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2007). An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review*, 14, 3-22.
+- Watanabe, S. (2010). Asymptotic equivalence of Bayes cross validation and widely applicable information criterion in singular learning theory. *Journal of Machine Learning Research*, 11, 3571-3594.
+- White, C. N., & Poldrack, R. A. (2014). Decomposing bias in different types of simple decisions. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition*, 40, 385-398.
+- Wiecki, T. V., Sofer, I., & Frank, M. J. (2013). HDDM: Hierarchical Bayesian estimation of the drift-diffusion model in Python. *Frontiers in Neuroinformatics*, 7, 14.
+
+See `references/ez-diffusion-formulas.md` for EZ-diffusion closed-form equations and worked examples.

package/skills/03_Cognitive_Psychology/evidence-accumulation-selector/references/ez-diffusion-formulas.md

@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+# EZ-Diffusion Formulas and Worked Examples
+
+This reference file supplements the main `SKILL.md` with the closed-form equations for EZ-diffusion (Wagenmakers et al., 2007) and worked examples.
+
+## 1. Input Requirements
+
+EZ-diffusion requires three summary statistics per experimental condition:
+
+- **Pc**: Proportion correct (accuracy), where 0.5 < Pc <= 1.0
+- **MRT**: Mean response time for correct responses (in seconds)
+- **VRT**: Variance of response times for correct responses (in seconds squared)
+
+## 2. Closed-Form Equations
+
+The following equations yield the three EZ-diffusion parameters from the summary statistics (Wagenmakers et al., 2007, Eq. 1-3).
+
+### Step 1: Compute drift rate (v)
+
+```
+Define: s = constant scaling parameter (typically s = 0.1; Ratcliff, 1978)
+
+L = logit(Pc) = ln(Pc / (1 - Pc))
+
+x = L * (L * Pc^2 - L * Pc + Pc - 0.5) / VRT
+
+v = sign(Pc - 0.5) * s * x^(1/4)
+```
+
+### Step 2: Compute boundary separation (a)
+
+```
+y = -v * L / (Pc^2 * (s^2 / (2*v^2)) * (exp(-2 * v * L * s^(-2)) - 1))
+
+Wait -- using the cleaner formulation from Wagenmakers et al. (2007):
+
+a = s^2 * L / v
+```
+
+Note: The sign convention ensures a > 0 when Pc > 0.5.
+
+### Step 3: Compute non-decision time (Ter)
+
+```
+Ter = MRT - (a / (2 * v)) * ((1 - exp(-v * a / s^2)) / (1 + exp(-v * a / s^2)))
+```
+
+## 3. Edge Correction
+
+When Pc = 0.5 (chance) or Pc = 1.0 (perfect), the equations break down (Wagenmakers et al., 2007).
+
+**Correction for Pc = 1.0**:
+```
+Pc_corrected = 1 - 1 / (2 * N)
+```
+
+**Correction for Pc = 0.5**:
+```
+Pc_corrected = 0.5 + 1 / (2 * N)
+```
+
+Where N = number of trials in that condition. Apply these corrections before computing EZ parameters.
+
+## 4. Robust EZ (REZ)
+
+Robust EZ (Grasman et al., 2009) addresses two limitations of basic EZ:
+
+1. Uses **median RT** instead of mean RT (more robust to outliers)
+2. Uses a **quantile-based variance estimate** (interquartile range) instead of sample variance
+
+Equations are similar but use robust estimators. See Grasman, Wagenmakers, & van der Maas (2009) for details.
+
+## 5. Worked Example
+
+### Example Data
+
+A participant in a lexical decision task:
+- Condition: High frequency words
+- Trials: 100 correct out of 120 total
+- Pc = 100/120 = 0.833
+- MRT (correct) = 0.623 s
+- VRT (correct) = 0.018 s^2
+
+### Step-by-step Computation
+
+Using scaling parameter s = 0.1 (Ratcliff, 1978):
+
+```
+L = ln(0.833 / 0.167) = ln(4.988) = 1.607
+
+v = sign(0.833 - 0.5) * 0.1 * (1.607 * (1.607 * 0.833^2 - 1.607 * 0.833 + 0.833 - 0.5) / 0.018)^(1/4)
+ = 0.1 * (1.607 * (1.115 - 1.339 + 0.333) / 0.018)^(1/4)
+ = 0.1 * (1.607 * 0.109 / 0.018)^(1/4)
+ = 0.1 * (9.731)^(1/4)
+ = 0.1 * 1.766
+ = 0.177
+
+a = 0.01 * 1.607 / 0.177
+ = 0.091
+
+Ter = 0.623 - (0.091 / (2 * 0.177)) * ((1 - exp(-0.177 * 0.091 / 0.01)) / (1 + exp(-0.177 * 0.091 / 0.01)))
+ = 0.623 - 0.257 * ((1 - exp(-1.611)) / (1 + exp(-1.611)))
+ = 0.623 - 0.257 * ((1 - 0.200) / (1 + 0.200))
+ = 0.623 - 0.257 * 0.667
+ = 0.623 - 0.171
+ = 0.452 s
+```
+
+### Interpretation
+
+- **v = 0.177**: Moderate drift rate, indicating reasonable evidence accumulation for high-frequency words
+- **a = 0.091**: Boundary separation reflecting the speed-accuracy tradeoff setting
+- **Ter = 0.452 s**: Non-decision time, encompassing stimulus encoding and motor execution
+
+## 6. Comparison: When EZ Diverges from Full DDM
+
+EZ-diffusion assumes:
+- No across-trial variability in drift rate (sv = 0)
+- No across-trial variability in starting point (sz = 0)
+- No across-trial variability in non-decision time (st0 = 0)
+
+When these variability parameters are non-zero in reality (Ratcliff, 1978):
+- EZ drift rate estimates tend to be **underestimates** of true drift rate
+- EZ boundary estimates remain relatively accurate
+- EZ non-decision time can be **overestimated**
+
+The mismatch is most problematic when:
+- Error RTs are substantially faster or slower than correct RTs (indicating sv > 0; Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008)
+- There is strong a priori bias toward one response (indicating sz > 0)
+
+For designs where these variabilities are theoretically important, use the full DDM instead.
+
+## References
+
+- Grasman, R. P. P. P., Wagenmakers, E.-J., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2009). On the mean and variance of response times under the diffusion model with an application to parameter estimation. *Journal of Mathematical Psychology*, 53, 55-68.
+- Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. *Psychological Review*, 85, 59-108.
+- Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. *Neural Computation*, 20, 873-922.
+- Wagenmakers, E.-J., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2007). An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review*, 14, 3-22.