Comparable performance on a spatial memory task in data collected in the lab and online

Abstract

Online data collection offers a wide range of benefits including access to larger and more diverse populations, together with a reduction in the experiment cycle. Here we compare performance in a spatial memory task, in which participants had to estimate object locations following viewpoint shifts, using data from a controlled lab-based setting and from an unsupervised online sample. We found that the data collected in a conventional laboratory setting and those collected online produced very similar results, although the online data was more variable with standard errors being about 10% larger than those of the data collected in the lab. Overall, our findings suggest that spatial memory studies using static images can be successfully carried out online with unsupervised samples. However, given the higher variability of the online data, it is recommended that the online sample size is increased to achieve similar standard errors to those obtained in the lab. For the current study and data processing procedures, this would require an online sample 25% larger than the lab sample.

Orienteering experts report more proficient spatial processing and memory across adulthood

“…This virtual study allowed us to recruit a large and diverse sample of participants from across the globe, and we used selfreported assessments to explore multiple cognitive domains relating to hippocampal functioning in a quick and accessible way. Although self-reports do not always correspond well to objective measures of cognition [58,59], physical tasks tend to be less impacted by metacognitive inaccuracies than cognitive tasks [60] and the self-reported assessments used here show good corresponded with objective measures [15,52,61]. Furthermore, when it comes to Alzheimer's and related dementias, subjective memory complaints are often used as an early indicator of increased risk, even in the absence of overt memory impairment [27].…”

Implicit and Explicit Preferences for Golden Ratio

“…Firstly, we used online data collection, but to minimize the effect of possible noise, we oversampled our subject pool to one-hundred participants, whereas typical IAT studies use smaller sample sizes [35]. Moreover, there is evidence of similar results obtained from both online and in-lab studies [36]. We also checked for outliers in our data (e.g., higher percentage of errors or longer time for experiment completion, compared to the total sample), and none were found, therefore, the data of all participants were included in the data analyses.…”

Biases in object location estimation: The role of rotations and translation

“…In line with this explanation, previous research suggests that adjustments require time and cognitive effort (Epley et al, 2004 ) and as a result, individuals often stop adjusting their responses once a plausible estimate is reached thereby biasing their responses in the direction of the initial anchor (Quattrone, 1982 ; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974 ). If participants in our previous studies (Segen et al, 2022 ; Segen et al, 2021a ) also showed insufficient adjustments, this would explain the systematic bias in the direction of the perspective shift.…”

“…In our previous work (Segen et al, 2022 ; Segen et al, 2021a ; Segen et al, 2021b ), participants may have used the egocentric self-to-object vector as an anchor for their response, which would result in participants “dragging” the object with them following a perspective shift. In line with this explanation, previous research suggests that adjustments require time and cognitive effort (Epley et al, 2004 ) and as a result, individuals often stop adjusting their responses once a plausible estimate is reached thereby biasing their responses in the direction of the initial anchor (Quattrone, 1982 ; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974 ).…”

“…Our recent research suggests that such paradigms may yield a systematic bias in reporting memorized object locations (Segen et al, 2022 ; Segen, Avraamides, Slattery, Colombo, & Wiener, 2021a ; Segen, Colombo, Avraamides, Slattery, & Wiener, 2021b ). Specifically, we found that when participants were asked to indicate the location of an object following a perspective shift (Segen et al, 2022 ; Segen et al, 2021a ) or when asked to judge the direction in which an object moved after a perspective shift (Segen et al, 2021b ), they systematically localized the object further in the direction of the perspective shift. Interestingly, this systematic bias in the direction of the perspective shift is not driven by distortions introduced in memory as participants also exhibited this bias in a perceptual version of the task (Segen et al, 2022 ).…”