Dissociating decision strategies in free-choice tasks – A mouse tracking analysis

Vogel, Diana; Scherbaum, Stefan; Janczyk, Markus

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.06.012

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, it represents an overemphasis of an initial tendency, after which the decision process leading to the ultimate choice kicks in, through which the movement direction is abruptly corrected; the velocity profile of dCOM trials also suggests this pattern. The prematurity of these excessive initial movements in dCOM trials can also be inferred from our observation that movement initiation often occurred even before stimulus presentation (see also Vogel et al, 2018) and that dCOM trials had faster movement initiations than non-dCOM trials. The violation of the assumption of continuous manifestation bears practical consequences as dCOM trials bias analyses of action dynamics: When we removed dCOM trials from our analysis, we found a strong reduction of the Simon effect in horizontal mouse movements for the click group, but not for the hover group.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

“…We found two distinct interindividual response strategies (see Vogel et al, 2018): Participants who initiated movement quickly exhibited curved trajectories indicating competition between responses during movement. Those who initiated movement slowly in turn exhibited mostly straight trajectory with virtually no curvature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…The other extreme combined long initiation times (and hence, ample opportunity for cognitive processing before movement) with short movement times (and hence, much less opportunity for cognitive processing to leak into movements). For this reason, we divided both response selection groups separately into subgroups by performing a median split with slow and fast movement initiation times (see Vogel, Scherbaum, & Janczyk, 2018). The median initiation times were 282.2 ms for hover and 81.8 ms for click (see Table 2 for the means and standard deviations of initiation times in the resulting subgroups; see also Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The type of processing depends on parameters of the task (Miller, Ulrich, & Rolke, 2009) and instruction though it seems that under free circumstances participants tend to use parallel processing preferentially (Lehle & Hübner, 2009). Applying these findings to mouse-tracking studies, one can speculate that design factors create different affordances for action selection and planning, thus enabling, facilitating or discouraging different modes/strategies of task execution (see Vogel et al, 2018). This holds true for the starting procedure, the response selection method, and response box positions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Lost to translation: How design factors of the mouse-tracking procedure impact the inference from action to cognition

Grage

Schoemann

Kieslich

et al. 2019

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From an embodiment perspective, action and cognition influence each other constantly. This interaction has been utilized in mouse-tracking studies to infer cognitive states from movements, assuming a continuous manifestation of cognitive processing into movement. However, it is mostly unknown how this manifestation is affected by the variety of possible design choices in mouse-tracking paradigms. Here we studied how three design factors impact the manifestation of cognition into movement in a Simon task with mouse tracking. We varied the response selection (i.e., with or without clicking), the ratio between hand and mouse cursor movement, and the location of the response boxes. The results show that all design factors can blur or even prevent the manifestation of cognition into movement, as reflected by a reduction in movement consistency and action dynamics, as well as by the adoption of unsuitable movement strategies. We conclude that deliberate and careful design choices in mouse-tracking experiments are crucial to ensuring a continuous manifestation of cognition in movement. We discuss the importance of developing a standard practice in the design of mouse-tracking experiments.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.3758/s13414-019-01889-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lost to translation: How design factors of the mouse-tracking procedure impact the inference from action to cognition

Grage

Schoemann

Kieslich

et al. 2019

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To enable a maximally pure test of binding and retrieval influences we opted to remove all participants who reported strategy use or whose data suggested the use of decision strategies from the analysis of the RE-block (for recent evidence for the impact of decision strategies in free-choice designs, see Vogel, Scherbaum, & Janczyk, 2018;Weller, Kunde & Pfister, 2017). Four participants reported having used strategies and another nine (as well as three of the participants reporting strategies) repeated the response from the prime in the probe in more than 90% or less than 10% of the trials if either stimulus or effect was repeated, which we interpreted as a strong indication for strategy use.…”

Section: Re-proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective binding of stimulus, response, and effect features

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responding to a stimulus leads to the integration of the stimulus, the response, and any sensory effect triggered by the response in a mental representation that has been called "event-file" or "instance." Most theoretical models assume that event files are composed of sets of binary bindings between individual stimulus, response, and effect features. Repeating any of the integrated features on a subsequent occasion would then retrieve the entire episode. However, previous studies mainly focused on either stimulus-response (SR) binding or response-effect (RE) binding while not assessing S-R-E episodes in their entirety. Here we analyzed for the first time bindings within entire action episodes including stimulus, response, and effect. We found clear evidence for SR-and RE-binding, but no indication of integration between stimulus and effect. We conclude that representations of actions are structured according to the current task, possibly providing a base for learning mechanisms to draw on.

show abstract

Is there hierarchical generalization in response-effect learning?

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ideomotor theory is an influential approach to understand goal-directed behavior. In this framework, response-effect (R-E) learning is assumed as a prerequisite for voluntary action: Once associations between motor actions and their effects in the environment have been formed, the anticipation of these effects will automatically activate the associated motor pattern. R-E learning is typically investigated with (induction) experiments that comprise an acquisition phase, where R-E associations are presumably learned, and a subsequent test phase, where the previous effects serve as stimuli for a response. While most studies used stimuli in the test phase that were identical to the effects in the acquisition phase, one study reported generalization from exemplars to their superordinate category (Hommel et al., Vis Cogn 10:965–986, 2003, Exp. 1). However, studies on so-called R-E compatibility did not report such generalization. We aimed to conceptually replicate Experiment 1 of Hommel et al. (Vis Cogn 10:965–986, 2003) with a free-choice test phase. While we did observe effects consistent with R-E learning when the effects in the acquisition phase were identical to the stimuli in the test phase, we did not observe evidence for generalization. We discuss this with regard to recent studies suggesting that individual response biases might rather reflect rapidly inferred propositional knowledge instead of learned R-E associations.

show abstract

Dissociating decision strategies in free-choice tasks – A mouse tracking analysis

Cited by 15 publications

References 24 publications

Lost to translation: How design factors of the mouse-tracking procedure impact the inference from action to cognition

Lost to translation: How design factors of the mouse-tracking procedure impact the inference from action to cognition

Selective binding of stimulus, response, and effect features

Is there hierarchical generalization in response-effect learning?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About