Disentangling decision errors from action execution in mouse-tracking studies: The case of effect-based action control.

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY Attention Perception & Psychophysics Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.3758/s13414-024-02974-8
Solveig Tonn, Moritz Schaaf, Wilfried Kunde, Roland Pfister
{"title":"Disentangling decision errors from action execution in mouse-tracking studies: The case of effect-based action control.","authors":"Solveig Tonn, Moritz Schaaf, Wilfried Kunde, Roland Pfister","doi":"10.3758/s13414-024-02974-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mouse-tracking is regarded as a powerful technique to investigate latent cognitive and emotional states. However, drawing inferences from this manifold data source carries the risk of several pitfalls, especially when using aggregated data rather than single-trial trajectories. Researchers might reach wrong conclusions because averages lump together two distinct contributions that speak towards fundamentally different mechanisms underlying between-condition differences: influences from online-processing during action execution and influences from incomplete decision processes. Here, we propose a simple method to assess these factors, thus allowing us to probe whether process-pure interpretations are appropriate. By applying this method to data from 12 published experiments on ideomotor action control, we show that the interpretation of previous results changes when dissociating online processing from decision and initiation errors. Researchers using mouse-tracking to investigate cognition and emotion are therefore well advised to conduct detailed trial-by-trial analyses, particularly when they test for direct leakage of ongoing processing into movement trajectories.</p>","PeriodicalId":55433,"journal":{"name":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-024-02974-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mouse-tracking is regarded as a powerful technique to investigate latent cognitive and emotional states. However, drawing inferences from this manifold data source carries the risk of several pitfalls, especially when using aggregated data rather than single-trial trajectories. Researchers might reach wrong conclusions because averages lump together two distinct contributions that speak towards fundamentally different mechanisms underlying between-condition differences: influences from online-processing during action execution and influences from incomplete decision processes. Here, we propose a simple method to assess these factors, thus allowing us to probe whether process-pure interpretations are appropriate. By applying this method to data from 12 published experiments on ideomotor action control, we show that the interpretation of previous results changes when dissociating online processing from decision and initiation errors. Researchers using mouse-tracking to investigate cognition and emotion are therefore well advised to conduct detailed trial-by-trial analyses, particularly when they test for direct leakage of ongoing processing into movement trajectories.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将小鼠追踪研究中的决策错误与行动执行区分开来:基于效果的行动控制案例
鼠标跟踪被认为是研究潜在认知和情绪状态的一种强大技术。然而,从这种多方面的数据源中得出推论有可能存在一些误区,尤其是在使用汇总数据而不是单次试验轨迹时。研究人员可能会得出错误的结论,因为将两种截然不同的贡献混为一谈,而这两种贡献说明了条件间差异的根本不同机制:行动执行过程中在线处理的影响和不完整决策过程的影响。在这里,我们提出了一种简单的方法来评估这些因素,从而让我们能够探究纯过程解释是否合适。通过将这种方法应用于 12 个已发表的意念运动动作控制实验数据,我们发现,当把在线处理与决策和启动错误区分开来时,对之前结果的解释就会发生变化。因此,我们建议使用鼠标跟踪来研究认知和情感的研究人员进行详细的逐次试验分析,尤其是当他们测试正在进行的处理过程是否直接泄漏到动作轨迹中时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
17.60%
发文量
197
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics is an official journal of the Psychonomic Society. It spans all areas of research in sensory processes, perception, attention, and psychophysics. Most articles published are reports of experimental work; the journal also presents theoretical, integrative, and evaluative reviews. Commentary on issues of importance to researchers appears in a special section of the journal. Founded in 1966 as Perception & Psychophysics, the journal assumed its present name in 2009.
期刊最新文献
Disentangling decision errors from action execution in mouse-tracking studies: The case of effect-based action control. Parafoveal N400 effects reveal that word skipping is associated with deeper lexical processing in the presence of context-driven expectations. Correction to: On the relationship between spatial attention and semantics in the context of a Stroop paradigm. Can the left hand benefit from being right? The influence of body side on perceived grasping ability. Gaze-action coupling, gaze-gesture coupling, and exogenous attraction of gaze in dyadic interactions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1