Differential effects of visual uncertainty and contextual guidance on perceptual decisions: Evidence from eye and mouse tracking in visual search

Abstract

Visual search can be seen as a decision-making process that aims to assess whether a target is present or absent from a scene. In this perspective, eye movements collect evidence related to target detection and verification to guide the decision. We investigated whether, in real-world scenes, target detection and verification are differentially recruited in the decision-making process in the presence of prior information (expectations about target location) and perceptual uncertainty (noise). We used a mouse-tracking methodology with which mouse trajectories unveil components of decision-making and eye-tracking measures reflect target detection and verification. Indoor scenes were presented, including a target in usual or unusual locations or no target, and were degraded with additive noise (or no noise). Participants had to respond to the target's presence or absence. Degrading the scene delayed the decision due to increased verification times and reduced mouse velocity. Targets in unusual locations delayed the decision and deviated mouse trajectories toward the target-absent response. Detection times played a major role in these effects. Thus, target detection and verification processes influence decision-making by integrating the available sources of information differently and lead to an accumulation of evidence toward both the presence of a target and its absence.

The Influence of Misarticulations on Children's Word Identification and Processing

“…A larger area indicates a more curved line, suggesting greater uncertainty than a smaller area, or more direct line from start to picture selection. Mean AUC provided information about the participants' degree of attraction to the unselected alternative (Freeman & Ambady, 2010;Quétard et al, 2016). A higher AUC measurement suggested that mouse behavior was driven toward the alternate before ultimately making a selection.…”

Cognitive Dynamics of Religiosity and Intertemporal Choice Behavior

“…The statistical significance of the effects was assessed using mixed effects-models (Baayen et al, 2008; Bates et al, 2015; R Core Team, 2014) because they are able to account for between-subject differences, which are unrelated to the task design/experimental manipulation. Additionally, such approach represents a gold standard analysis when dealing with mouse kinematics data to account for participants’ basic motor properties (e.g., a subject can show higher trajectories’ curvature or can be faster/slower compared to another, independently from the decision itself) and was also employed in many previous mouse-tracking studies (Barca & Pezzulo, 2012; Calluso et al, 2018, 2019, 2020; O’Hora et al, 2013a, 2016; Quétard et al, 2016; Quinton et al, 2013; Tabatabaeian et al, 2015).…”

Encoding decisions and expertise in the operator's eyes: Using eye-tracking as input for system adaptation

“…During the experiment, eye fixations on the upper screen were recorded with a remote SMI RED eye tracker (SensoMotoric Instruments GmbH, Germany) at a 60 Hz sampling rate. For all eye movement analyses, the detection threshold that defined a fixation was set to 80 ms (Causse et al, 2016;Quétard et al, 2016;Salvucci and Goldberg, 2000). Eight areas of interest (AOIs) were defined, one for each parameter (red rectangles around the parameters in Fig.…”