Analysis of hand kinematics reveals inter-individual differences in intertemporal decision dynamics

Calluso, Cinzia; Committeri, Giorgia; Pezzulo, Giovanni; Lepora, Nathan F.; Tosoni, Annalisa

doi:10.1007/s00221-015-4427-1

Cited by 33 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to exemplify this conclusion in the case of intertemporal choice, we refer to the literature that also investigated the action dynamics of intertemporal decision making. To our knowledge there exist only four studies including our original work (Calluso et al, 2015;Dshemuchadse et al, 2013;O'Hora et al, 2016;Scherbaum et al, 2018a). The most basic results of those studies focused on the comparison of mouse movements between choices of the soonsmall and the late-large option.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, in the last ten years, mouse-tracking flourished in many fields of psychological research (for a review, see Erb, 2018;Freeman, 2018;Freeman, Dale, & Farmer, 2011), finding applications in studies of phonological and semantic processing (Dale et al, 2007;Dshemuchadse, Grage, & Scherbaum, 2015;Spivey et al, 2005), cognitive control (Dignath, Pfister, Eder, Kiesel, & Kunde, 2014;Scherbaum, Dshemuchadse, Fischer, & Goschke, 2010;Yamamoto, Incera, & McLennan, 2016), selective attention (Frisch, Dshemuchadse, Görner, Goschke, & Scherbaum, 2015), numerical cognition (Szaszi, Palfi, Szollosi, Kieslich, & Aczel, 2018), perceptual choices (Quinton, Volpi, Barca, & Pezzulo, 2014), moral decisions (Koop, 2013), preferential choices (Koop & Johnson, 2013;O'Hora, Dale, Piiroinen, & Connolly, 2013), lexical decisions (Barca & Pezzulo, 2012, 2015, and value-based decisions (Calluso, Committeri, Pezzulo, Lepora, & Tosoni, 2015;Dshemuchadse et al, 2013;Kieslich & Hilbig, 2014;Koop & Johnson, 2011;O'Hora, Carey, Kervick, Crowley, & Dabrowski, 2016;Scherbaum et al, 2016;Scherbaum, Dshemuchadse, Leiberg, & Goschke, 2013;Scherbaum, Frisch, & Dshemuchadse, 2018b, 2018avan Rooij, Favela, Malone, & Richardson, 2013).…”

Section: Mouse-tracking As a Process-tracing Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concerning the position of stimuli, there are paradigms in which stimuli are presented very close to the center of the screen (e.g., Calluso et al, 2015), whereas in other paradigms the stimuli are presented close to or within the response boxes which are usually positioned at the upper left and right edge of the screen (e.g., Faulkenberry, Cruise, Lavro, & Shaki, 2016).…”

Section: Varieties In the Implementation Of Mouse-trackingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Validating Mouse-Tracking: How Design Factors Influence Action Dynamics in Intertemporal Decision Making

Schoemann¹,

Lüken²,

Grage³

et al. 2019

Preprint

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. As this assumption is the prerequisite for a 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 study the impact of three commonly occurring methodological variations on the quality of mouse-tracking measures, and hence, 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 stimuli position. The starting procedure had the strongest influence on common mouse-tracking measures and therefore the cognitive effects. The effect of the response procedure and the stimuli position was 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 to obtain an evidence-based gold standard of mouse-tracking.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mouse-tracking As a Process-tracing Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Varieties In the Implementation Of Mouse-trackingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validating Mouse-Tracking: How Design Factors Influence Action Dynamics in Intertemporal Decision Making

Schoemann¹,

Lüken²,

Grage³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is in contrast with the findings of Dshemuchadse et al (2013), who identified a bias towards the SS option in mouse cursor trajectories. To further complicate the issue, Calluso et al (2015) and O'Hora et al (2016) found a bias in the opposite direction, towards the LL option.…”

Section: Symmetrically Increased Motor Costs Of Responding Do Not Affmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond reach: Do symmetric changes in motor costs affect decision making? A registered report

Zgonnikov

Atiya

O’Hora

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executing an important decision can be as easy as moving a mouse cursor or reaching towards the preferred option with a hand. But would we decide differently if choosing required walking a few steps towards an option? More generally, is our preference invariant to the means and motor costs of reporting it? Previous research demonstrated that asymmetric motor costs can nudge the decision-maker towards a less costly option. However, virtually all traditional decision-making theories predict that increasing motor costs symmetrically for all options should not affect choice in any way. This prediction is disputed by the theory of embodied cognition, which suggests that motor behavior is an integral part of cognitive processes, and that motor costs can affect our choices. In this registered report, we investigated whether varying motor costs can affect response dynamics and the final choices in an intertemporal choice task: choosing between a readily available small reward and a larger but delayed reward. Our study compared choices reported by moving a computer mouse cursor towards the preferred option with the choices executed via a more motor costly walking procedure. First, we investigated whether relative values of the intertemporal choice options affect walking trajectories in the same way as they affect mouse cursor dynamics. Second, we tested a hypothesis that, in the walking condition, increased motor costs of a preference reversal would decrease the number of changes-of-mind and therefore increase the proportion of impulsive, smaller-but-sooner choices. We confirmed the hypothesis that walking trajectories reflect covert dynamics of decision making, and rejected the hypothesis that increased motor costs of responding affect decisions in an intertemporal choice task. Overall, this study contributes to the empirical basis enabling the decision-making theories to address the complex interplay between cognitive and motor processes.

show abstract

“…On the basis of this assumption, this new method has been applied in nearly all aspects of cognitive and social decision making studies, including delay discounting and stop-signal tasks (Dschemuchadse et al, 2013, O'Hora et al, 2016, numerical judgment (Xiao & Yamauchi, 2015), categorization (Dale, Kehoe, & Spivey, 2007), inductive reasoning (Yamauchi, Kohn, & Yu, 2007), linguistic judgment (Spivey, Grosjean, & Knoblich, 2005), racial and gender judgment of morphed face pictures Freeman, Pauker, Apfelbaum, & Ambady, 2009), attitudinal ambivalence toward certain topics (e.g., abortion) (Schneider et al, 2015;Wojnowicz, Ferguson, Dale, & Spivey, 2009), uncertainty in economic choices (Calluso, Committeri, Pezzulo, Lepora, & Tosoni, 2015), and among others (see for review , Freeman, 2018;Stillman et al, 2018;Yamauchi, Leontyev, & Wolfe, 2017).…”

Section: Figure 1 Comparison Between Keypress (Upper Panel) and Mousmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discerning Mouse Trajectory Features with Drift Diffusion Model

Leontyev¹,

Yamauchi²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In decision-making tasks, participants are commonly instructed to respond by pressing a key. This design provides information about how fast and accurate an individual can respond but does not allow a researcher to directly study the process of response selection. Recently, mouse cursor tracking has been applied to offset this limitation. However, it is unclear whether RT/accuracy-based measures and mouse movement features (e.g. velocity) assess the same cognitive processes. To clarify the relationship between mouse movement features and cognitive processes, we developed mouse-tracking versions of the stop-signal and delay discounting tasks and investigated a) whether people respond similarly in the tasks with traditional design and tasks employing mouse cursor tracking; b) which features of the decision-making process mouse movement measures correspond with. Although participants responded similarly in tasks with traditional and mouse tracking design, only a few mouse movement features were related to the elements of the decision-making process.

show abstract

Analysis of hand kinematics reveals inter-individual differences in intertemporal decision dynamics

Cited by 33 publications

References 53 publications

Validating Mouse-Tracking: How Design Factors Influence Action Dynamics in Intertemporal Decision Making

Validating Mouse-Tracking: How Design Factors Influence Action Dynamics in Intertemporal Decision Making

Beyond reach: Do symmetric changes in motor costs affect decision making? A registered report

Discerning Mouse Trajectory Features with Drift Diffusion Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About