Literature DB >> 30963463

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

Pascal J Kieslich1,2, Martin Schoemann3, Tobias Grage3, Johanna Hepp4, Stefan Scherbaum3.   

Abstract

Investigating cognitive processes by analyzing mouse movements has become a popular method in many psychological disciplines. When creating mouse-tracking experiments, researchers face many design choices-for example, whether participants indicate responses by clicking a button or just by entering the button area. Hitherto, numerous different settings have been employed, but little is known about how these methodological differences affect mouse-tracking data. We systematically investigated the influences of three central design factors, using a classic mouse-tracking paradigm in which participants classified typical and atypical exemplars. In separate experiments, we manipulated the response indication, mouse sensitivity, and starting procedure. The core finding that mouse movements deviate more toward the nonchosen option for atypical exemplars was replicated in all conditions. However, the size of this effect varied. Specifically, it was larger when participants indicated responses via click and when they were instructed to initialize the movement early. Trajectory shapes also differed between setups. For example, a dynamic start led to mostly curved trajectories, responses via click led to a mix of straight and "change-of-mind" trajectories, and responses via touch led to mostly straight trajectories. Moreover, the distribution of curvature indices was classified as bimodal in some setups and as unimodal in others. Because trajectory curvature and shape are frequently used to make inferences about psychological theories, such as differentiating between dynamic and dual-system models, this study shows that the specific design must be carefully considered when drawing theoretical inferences. All methodological designs and analyses were implemented using open-source software and are available from https://osf.io/xdp7a/.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cognitive processes; Decision-making; Experimental design; Mouse-tracking; Response dynamics

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 30963463     DOI: 10.3758/s13428-019-01228-y

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


  20 in total

1.  The response dynamics of recognition memory: Sensitivity and bias.

Authors:  Gregory J Koop; Amy H Criss
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  The response dynamics of preferential choice.

Authors:  Gregory J Koop; Joseph G Johnson
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2013-10-12       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Is action execution part of the decision-making process? An investigation of the embodied choice hypothesis.

Authors:  Balazs Aczel; Aba Szollosi; Bence Palfi; Barnabas Szaszi; Pascal J Kieslich
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses.

Authors:  Franz Faul; Edgar Erdfelder; Axel Buchner; Albert-Georg Lang
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2009-11

5.  The cognitive dynamics of negated sentence verification.

Authors:  Rick Dale; Nicholas D Duran
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2011-01-05

6.  Assessing bimodality to detect the presence of a dual cognitive process.

Authors:  Jonathan B Freeman; Rick Dale
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2013-03

7.  Doing psychological science by hand.

Authors:  Jonathan B Freeman
Journal:  Curr Dir Psychol Sci       Date:  2018-08-13

8.  Mousetrap: An integrated, open-source mouse-tracking package.

Authors:  Pascal J Kieslich; Felix Henninger
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2017-10

9.  Hand in motion reveals mind in motion.

Authors:  Jonathan B Freeman; Rick Dale; Thomas A Farmer
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2011-04-20

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

Authors:  Martin H Fischer; Matthias Hartmann
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-11-20
View more
  7 in total

1.  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

2.  A method for estimating the time of initiating correct categorization in mouse-tracking.

Authors:  David S March; Lowell Gaertner
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2021-04-12

Review 3.  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

4.  A Neuro-Computational Model for Discrete-Continuous Dual-Task Process.

Authors:  Maryam Sadeghi Talarposhti; Mohammad Ali Ahmadi-Pajouh; Farzad Towhidkhah
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 2.380

5.  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

6.  Mouse-tracking reveals cognitive conflict during negative impression formation in women with Borderline Personality Disorder or Social Anxiety Disorder.

Authors:  Johanna Hepp; Pascal J Kieslich; Andrea M Wycoff; Katja Bertsch; Christian Schmahl; Inga Niedtfeld
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  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
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.