Forward inference in risky choice: Mapping gaze and decision processes

Schoemann, Martin; Schulte‐Mecklenbeck, Michael; Renkewitz, Frank; Scherbaum, Stefan

doi:10.1002/bdm.2129

Cited by 20 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our case, the simplicity of the agent task limits the relevance to the general effort–accuracy tradeoff. Our research is similar to earlier empirical research that instructed participants to use specific choice strategies (Jiang, Potters, & Funaki, 2016; Schoemann, Schulte‐Mecklenbeck, Renkewitz, & Scherbaum, 2019). We believe that future studies could derive more insight from decomposing effort components for more complex and directly relevant tasks, such as selecting candidates for a job or finding items within a complex image.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Components of attentional effort for repeated tasks

Musalem

Montoya

Meißner

et al. 2020

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper identifies four attentional processes that increase efficiency and accuracy in repeated lexicographic tasks using an instructed strategy approach. We propose a framework to decompose attentional effort used to make a decision into four components: Orientation, Wrong Target, Duration, and Repetition. Orientation assesses attention to decision rules and the location of relevant information. Wrong Target measures wasted effort on unneeded information. Duration gauges time spent on each piece of needed information. Repetition measures the number of views on each relevant item. Greater Orientation is associated with lower effort in other components and increased accuracy. Repetition is most variable across individuals but generates the greatest improvement with practice. Duration is less affected by the other components and shows minimal improvement with experience. Finally, Wrong Target

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Components of attentional effort for repeated tasks

Musalem

Montoya

Meißner

et al. 2020

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been pointed out that this reasoning is deductively invalid, because different cognitive processes can be responsible for the same observable pattern (Poldrack, 2006, p. 59). To overcome this caveat, forward inference (Heit, 2015;Henson, 2006) has been emphasized: This technique turns the direction of inference upside down, by making cognitive processing explicit through instructions, and has recently been studied for eye-tracking paradigms (Schoemann, Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Renkewitz, & Scherbaum, 2018;Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Kühberger, Gagl, & Hutzler, 2017). The forward inference route, from cognitive processing to behavioral patterns, might also be beneficial to approaching the problems raised by mouse-tracking.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validating mouse-tracking: How design factors influence action dynamics in intertemporal decision making

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mouse-tracking is an increasingly popular process-tracing method. It builds on the assumption that the continuity of cognitive processing leaks into the continuity of mouse movements. Because this assumption is the prerequisite for meaningful reverse inference, it is an important question whether the assumed interaction between continuous processing and movement might be influenced by the methodological setup of the measurement. Here we studied the impacts of three commonly occurring methodological variations on the quality of mouse-tracking measures, and hence, on the reported cognitive effects. We used a mouse-tracking version of a classical intertemporal choice task that had previously been used to examine the dynamics of temporal discounting and the date-delay effect (Dshemuchadse, Scherbaum, & Goschke, 2013). The data from this previous study also served as a benchmark condition in our experimental design. Between studies, we varied the starting procedure. Within the new study, we varied the response procedure and the stimulus position. The starting procedure had the strongest influence on common mouse-tracking measures, and therefore on the cognitive effects. The effects of the response procedure and the stimulus position were weaker and less pronounced. The results suggest that the methodological setup crucially influences the interaction between continuous processing and mouse movement. We conclude that the methodological setup is of high importance for the validity of mouse-tracking as a process-tracing method. Finally, we discuss the need for standardized mouse-tracking setups, for which we provide recommendations, and present two promising lines of research toward obtaining an evidence-based gold standard of mouse-tracking. Keywords Mouse-tracking. Action dynamics. Process-tracing. Boundary conditions. Intertemporal choice Decision science has experienced a paradigmatic shift evolving its focus, methods, and approaches from an outcomebased perspective toward a more process-oriented paradigm (Oppenheimer & Kelso, 2015). This process paradigm acknowledges the temporal nature of basic mental processes and, hence, builds theories of choice incorporating perceptual, attentional, memory, and decisional processes. To test these process explanations, process-tracing methods are required. In the last 60 years, decision scientists introduced a variety of process-tracing methods to the field-for example, verbal protocols (e.g., Ericson & Simon, 1984), eye tracking (e.g., Russo & Rosen, 1975), and most recently, mouse-tracking (e.g., Dale, Kehoe, & Spivey, 2007; Spivey, Grosjean, & Knoblich, 2005) (for an overview, please see Schulte-Mecklenbeck et al., 2017). Whenever scientists apply such process-tracing methods, they rely on specific prerequisites and core concepts in order to conduct the reverse inference (Poldrack, 2006): Reverse inference describes the reasoning by which the presence of a particular cognitive process is inferred from a pattern of neuroimaging or behavioral data (cf. Heit, 2015). One prerequi...

show abstract

“…Reverse-inference reasoning depends on a stable mapping between cognitive processing and observable measures (i.e., the mouse cursor movements; see Fig. 1 ; see also Schoemann, Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Renkewitz, & Scherbaum, 2019 ; Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Kühberger, Gagl, & Hutzler, 2017 ). Hence, the mouse-tracking setup should promote such a stable mapping rather than disturb it.…”

Section: Review and Synthesis Of Recent Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using mouse cursor tracking to investigate online cognition: Preserving methodological ingenuity while moving toward reproducible science

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mouse cursor tracking has become a prominent method for characterizing cognitive processes, used in a wide variety of domains of psychological science. Researchers have demonstrated considerable ingenuity in the application of the approach, but the methodology has not undergone systematic analysis to facilitate the development of best practices. Furthermore, recent research has demonstrated effects of experimental design features on a number of mousetracking outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the mouse-tracking literature to survey the reporting and spread of mouse variables (Cursor speed, Sampling rate, Training), physical characteristics of the experiments (Stimulus position, Response box position) and response requirements (Start procedure, Response procedure, Response deadline). This survey reveals that there is room for improvement in reporting practices, especially of subtler design features that researchers may have assumed would not impact research results (e.g., Cursor speed). We provide recommendations for future best practices in mouse-tracking studies and consider how best to standardize the mouse-tracking literature without excessively constraining the methodological flexibility that is essential to the field.

show abstract

Forward inference in risky choice: Mapping gaze and decision processes

Cited by 20 publications

References 38 publications

Components of attentional effort for repeated tasks

Components of attentional effort for repeated tasks

Validating mouse-tracking: How design factors influence action dynamics in intertemporal decision making

Using mouse cursor tracking to investigate online cognition: Preserving methodological ingenuity while moving toward reproducible science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About