Literature DB >> 29101661

Stuck at the starting line: How the starting procedure influences mouse-tracking data.

Stefan Scherbaum1, Pascal J Kieslich2.   

Abstract

Mouse-tracking is an increasingly popular method to trace cognitive processes. As is common for a novel method, the exact methodological procedures employed in an individual study are still relatively idiosyncratic and the effects of different methodological setups on mouse-tracking measures have not been explored so far. Here, we study the impact of one commonly occurring methodological variation, namely whether participants have to initiate their mouse movements to trigger stimulus presentation (dynamic starting condition) or whether the stimulus is presented automatically after a fixed delay and participants can freely decide when to initiate their movements (static starting condition). We compared data from a previous study in which participants performed a mouse-tracking version of a Simon task with a dynamic starting condition to data from a new study that employed a static starting condition in an otherwise identical setup. Results showed reliable Simon effects and Congruency Sequence effects on response time (RT) and discrete trial-level mouse-tracking measures (i.e., average deviation) in both starting conditions. In contrast, within-trial continuous measures (i.e., extracted temporal segments) were weaker and occurred in a more temporally compressed way in the static compared to the dynamic starting condition. This was in line with generally less consistent movements within and across participants in the static compared to the dynamic condition. Our results suggest that studies that use within-trial continuous measures to assess dynamic aspects of mouse movements should apply dynamic starting procedures to enhance the leakage of cognitive processing into the mouse movements.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Boundary conditions; Methodology; Mouse-tracking; Simon task

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29101661     DOI: 10.3758/s13428-017-0977-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  1 in total

1.  Pushing forward in embodied cognition: may we mouse the mathematical mind?

Authors:  Martin H Fischer; Matthias Hartmann
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-11-20
  1 in total
  15 in total

1.  Psychometrics of the continuous mind: Measuring cognitive sub-processes via mouse tracking.

Authors:  Stefan Scherbaum; Maja Dshemuchadse
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2020-04

2.  Computer mouse tracking reveals motor signatures in a cognitive task of spatial language grounding.

Authors:  Jonas Lins; Gregor Schöner
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Response dynamics of event-based prospective memory retrieval in mouse tracking.

Authors:  Jason L Hicks; Samantha N Spitler; Megan H Papesh
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2019-07

4.  Continuous cursor-captured conceptual competition: Investigating the spatiotemporal dynamics of spoken word comprehension.

Authors:  Josef Toon; Marie-Josee Bisson; Mark Scase; Anuenue Kukona
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2022-09-30

5.  Design factors in mouse-tracking: What makes a difference?

Authors:  Pascal J Kieslich; Martin Schoemann; Tobias Grage; Johanna Hepp; Stefan Scherbaum
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2020-02

Review 6.  Using mouse cursor tracking to investigate online cognition: Preserving methodological ingenuity while moving toward reproducible science.

Authors:  Martin Schoemann; Denis O'Hora; Rick Dale; Stefan Scherbaum
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-12-14

7.  Decision landscapes: visualizing mouse-tracking data.

Authors:  A Zgonnikov; A Aleni; P T Piiroinen; D O'Hora; M di Bernardo
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2017-11-08       Impact factor: 2.963

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

Authors:  Tobias Grage; Martin Schoemann; Pascal J Kieslich; Stefan Scherbaum
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Motor adaptation is promoted by an incongruent Stroop task, but not by a congruent Stroop task.

Authors:  Takehide Kimura; Wataru Nakano
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Design choices: Empirical recommendations for designing two-dimensional finger-tracking experiments.

Authors:  Robert Wirth; Anna Foerster; Wilfried Kunde; Roland Pfister
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2020-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.