The misfit was most apparent for participant WB, for whom the model deviated from the data for most quantiles in the accuracy session.
To determine a participant-specific time limit, we fitted the proportional-rate diffusion model to the data of the accuracy session and estimated the halfway time threshold from the chronometric curve (predicted by the proportional-rate diffusion model; Palmer et al., 2005).
This explanation is in line with the RTs for the accuracy session, which were relatively slow, as compared also to those from other studies using the RDM task (Forstmann et al., 2008; Mulder et al., 2010; Mulder et al., 2012; Palmer et al., 2005; Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008; van Maanen, Grasman, Forstmann, Keuken, et al., 2012a; van Maanen, Grasman, Forstmann, & Wagenmakers, 2012b).
Indeed, a learning effect is apparent in the behavioral data that indicated greater accuracy during sessions 2 4 relative to session 1.
Accuracy across sessions was on average 99 ± 1% for word reading and 90±9%9% for object naming.
Accuracy across sessions was on average 92 ± 8% and 91 ± 8% for matching words and pictures, respectively.
In order to characterize the changes in recall accuracy across sessions, we used univariate repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Participant features had little effect in the increase recall accuracy over sessions and the flashcard features also accounted for less effect than in the quiz group.
We performed a 2 × 2 ANOVA on "right" and "left" spoken response accuracy during Session 2. Group PDD vs. Control) and Medication Session (OFF vs. ON) were between-subject factors.
