A comment on the Revised Diffusion Model for Conflict tasks (RDMC)

In conflict tasks, such as the Simon, Eriksen flanker, or Stroop task, a relevant and an irrelevant feature indicate the same or different responses in congruent and incongruent trials, respectively. The congruency effect refers to faster and less error-prone responses in congruent relative to incongruent trials. Distributional analyses reveal that the congruency effect in the Simon task becomes smaller with increasing RTs, reflected by a negative-going delta function. In contrast, for other tasks, the delta function is typically positive-going, meaning that congruency effects become larger with increasing RTs. The Diffusion Model for Conflict tasks (DMC; Ulrich et al., Cognitive Psychology, 78, 148–174, 2015) accounts for this by explicitly modeling the information accumulated from the relevant and the irrelevant features and attributes negatively- versus positively-sloped delta functions to different peak times of a pulse-like activation resulting from the task-irrelevant feature. Because the underlying function implies negative drift rates, Lee and Sewell (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 31(5), 1–31, 2024) recently questioned this assumption and suggested their Revised Diffusion Model for Conflict tasks (RDMC). We address three issues regarding RDMC compared to DMC: (1) The pulse-like function is not as implausible as Lee and Sewell suggest. (2) RDMC itself comes with a questionable assumption that different parameters are required for congruent and incongruent trials. (3) Moreover, we present data from a new parameter recovery study, suggesting that RDMC lacks acceptable recovery of several parameters (in particular compared to DMC). In this light, we discuss RDMC as not (yet) a revised version of DMC.