Diffusion versus linear ballistic accumulation: different models but the same conclusions about psychological processes?

Quantitative models for response time and accuracy are increasingly used as tools to draw conclusions about psychological processes. Here we investigate the extent to which these substantive conclusions depend on whether researchers use the Ratcliff diffusion model or the Linear Ballistic Accumulator model. Simulations show that the models agree on the effects of changes in the rate of information accumulation and changes in non-decision time, but that they disagree on the effects of changes in response caution. In fits to empirical data, however, the models tend to agree closely on the effects of an experimental manipulation of response caution. We discuss the implications of these conflicting results, concluding that real manipulations of caution map closely, but not perfectly to response caution in either model. Importantly, we conclude that inferences about psychological processes made from real data are unlikely to depend on the model that is used

Standardized mitotic counts in breast cancer evaluation of the method

Twenty-one pathologists and technicians participated in a study evaluating the variation present in mitotic counts for prognostication of breast cancer. The participants counted the mitotic figures in 20 breast cancer samples from ten high power fields (mitotic activity index, MAI, giving the results in mitotic figures per 10 fields) and also made a correction for field size and area fraction of the neoplastic epithelium to get the standardized mitotic index (volume fraction corrected mitotic index, or M/VV index, giving the result in mitotic figures per square mm of neoplastic epithelium). The difference in variation between the two methods was not big, but the standardized mitotic index (SMI) showed consistently smaller variation among all participants and different subgroups. Experienced pathologists had the highest variation in mitotic counts, and specially trained technicians, the lowest. The efficiency of the mitotic counts in grading (the grading efficiency) was used to evaluate the mitotic counts. In groups without special training for mitotic counts the mean grading efficiency was lower (experienced and training pathologists both on average had the potential to grade 88% of the cases correctly) than in the group specially trained for the purpose (trained technicians had the potential to grade 95% of the cases correctly). Among the specially trained technicians, the grading efficiency was of the same magnitude as the grading efficiency achieved in determining the S-Phase fraction of cells from paraffin embedded breast cancers by flow cytometry in different laboratories. The results suggest that special training is helpful in making mitotic counts more reproducible, and that in trained hands, the mitotic counts give results comparable to more sophisticated methods of determining proliferative activity in breast cancer