Decision neuroscience for improving data visualization of decision support in the FITradeoff method

Abstract

Multi-criteria decision making/aiding problems are very common in everyday life in society. Nevertheless, some difficulties appear when such problems arise and visualization may facilitate this process. Neuroscience deals with the study of the neural system and has had increasing relevance for several areas of knowledge, including multi-criteria decision making/aiding, as it adds to the understanding of human behavior and the decision process. Using neuroscience tools to aid improving data visualization is becoming increasingly relevant, since this is an important issue for decision-making. Therefore, this study seeks to use neuroscience in order to investigate how decision makers evaluate the graphical visualization in FITradeoff method. In this context, a neuroscience experiment using eye-tracking was developed, the main purpose of which was to improve the FITradeoff decision support system and, moreover, to provide information for the analyst about the application of graphical visualization in multi-criteria decision making/aiding problems. The experiment was applied using graduate and postgraduate management engineering students. This paper presents the main results obtained from the experiments, and also an analysis of these results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Ares G et al (2014) Influence of rational and intuitive thinking styles on food choice: preliminary evidence from an eye-tracking study with yogurt labels. Food Qual Prefer 31:28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bault N, Wydoodt P, Coricelli G (2016) Different attentional patterns for regret and disappointment: an eye-tracking study. J Behav Decis Mak 29:194–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bazzazi A, Osanloo M, Karimi B (2009) Optimal open pit mining equipment selection using fuzzy multiple attribute decision making approach. Arch Min Sci 54(2):301–320

    Google Scholar 

  4. Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brookes VJ, DelRio VV, Ward MP (2015) Disease prioritization: what is the state of the art? Epidemiol Infect 143(14):2911–2922. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268815000801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chai J, Liu J, Ngai E (2013) Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: a systematic review of literature. Expert Syst Appl 40(10):3872–3885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. De Almeida AT (2007) Multicriteria decision model for outsourcing contracts selection based on utility function and ELECTRE method. Comput Oper Res 34(12):3569–3574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2006.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. De Almeida AT, Roselli LRP (2017) Visualization for decision support in FITradeoff method: exploring its evaluation with cognitive neuroscience. In: Linden I, Liu C, Colot C (eds) Decision support systems VII: data, information and knowledge visualization in decision support systems. LNBIP 282, pp 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57487-5_5

  9. De Almeida AT, Cavalcante C, Alencar M, Ferreira R, de Almeida-Filho AT, Garcez T (2015) Multicriteria and multi-objective models for risk, reliability and maintenance decision analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 231. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. De Almeida AT, de Almeida J, Costa APCS, De Almeida-Filho AT (2016) A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: flexible and interactive tradeoff. Eur J Oper Res 250:179–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Demirel N, Demirel T, Deveci M, Vardar G (2017) Location selection for underground natural gas storage using Choquet integral. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 45:368–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.05.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fehr E, Camerer CF (2007) Social neuroeconomics: the neural circuitry of social preferences. Trends Cogn Sci 11:419–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  14. Glimcher PW, Rustichini A (2004) Neuroeconomics: the consilience of brain and decision. Science 5695:447–452. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Goucher-Lambert K, Moss J, Cagan J (2017) Inside the mind: using neuroimaging to understand moral product preference judgments involving sustainability. J Mech Des 139:041–103. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4035859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Guixeres J et al (2017) Consumer neuroscience-based metrics predict recall, liking and viewing rates in online advertising. Front Psychol 8:1808. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hunt LT, Dolan RJ, Behrens TE (2014) Hierarchical competitions subserving multi-attribute choice. Nat Neurosci 17:1613–1622. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kasanen E, Östermark R, Zeleny M (1991) Gestalt system of holistic graphics: new management support view of MCDM. Comput Oper Res 18(2):233–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(91)90093-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976a) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences, and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976b) Decision analysis with multiple conflicting objectives. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Khushaba RN (2013) Consumer neuroscience: assessing the brain response to marketing stimuli using electroencephalogram (EEG) and eye tracking. Expert Syst Appl 40:3803–3812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim BE, Seligman D, Kable JW (2012) Preference reversals in decision making under risk are accompanied by changes in attention to different attributes. Front Neurosci 6:109. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2012.00109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kothe CA, Makeig S (2011) Estimation of task workload from EEG data: new and current tools and perspectives. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, annual international conference of the IEEE

  24. Laeng B, Sirois S, Gredebäck G (2012) Pupillometry: a window to the preconscious? Perspect Psychol Sci 7:18–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611427305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lashgari A, Yazdani-Chamzini A, Fouladgar M, Zavadskas E, Shafiee S, Abbate N (2012) Equipment selection using fuzzy multi criteria decision making model: key study of Gole Gohar iron mine. Eng Econ 23(2):125–136. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.23.2.1544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Miettinen K (2014) Survey of methods to visualize alternatives in multiple criteria decision-making problems. OR Spectr 36(1):3–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00291-012-0297-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mohr PNC, Biele G, Heekeren H (2010) Neural processing of risk. J Neurosci 30:6613–6619. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0003-10.2010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Morin C (2011) Neuromarketing: the new science of consumer behavior. Society 48:131–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-010-9408-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Porter G, Troscianko T, Gilchrist ID (2007) Effort during visual search and counting: insights from pupillometry. Q J Exp Psychol 60:211–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210600673818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rangel A, Camerer C, Montague PR (2008) A framework for studying the neurobiology of value-based decision making. Nat Rev Neurosci 9:545–556. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Riedl R, Davis FD, Hevne R, Alan R (2014) Towards a NeuroIS research methodology: intensifying the discussion on methods, tools, and measurement. J Assoc Inf Syst 15:I

    Google Scholar 

  32. Roselli LRP, Frej EA, de Almeida AT (2018) Neuroscience experiment for graphical visualization in the FITradeoff decision support system. In: Chen Y, Kersten G, Vetschera R, Xu H (eds) Group decision and negotiation in an uncertain world. GDN 2018. Lecture notes in business information processing, vol 315. Springer, Cham, pp 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92874-6_5

  33. Sanfey AG, Rilling JK, Aronson JA, Nystrom LE, Cohen JP (2003) The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science 5626:1755–1758. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1082976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sharma N, Gedeon T (2012) Objective measures, sensors and computational techniques for stress recognition and classification: a survey. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 108:1287–1301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2012.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Slanzi G, Balazs J, Velásquez JD (2016) Predicting Web user click intention using pupil dilation and electroencephalogram analysis. In: Web intelligence (WI), IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/WI.2016.64

  36. Smith DV, Huettel SA (2010) Decision neuroscience: neuroeconomics. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 1:854–871. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sylcott B, Cagan J, Tabibnia G (2013) Understanding consumer tradeoffs between form and function through metaconjoint and cognitive neuroscience analyses. J Mech Des 135(10):101002. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4024975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang L, Chu J, Wu J (2007) Selection of optimum maintenance strategies based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Int J Prod Econ 107(1):151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.08.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Weber M, Borcherding K (1993) Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multi-attribute decision making. Eur J Oper Res 67:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(93)90318-H

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Zolfani S, Aghdaie M, Derakhti A, Zavadskas E, Varzandeh M (2013) Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating. Expert Syst Appl 40(17):7111–7121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.06.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was partially sponsored by the Brazilian Research Council (CNPq) for which the authors are most grateful.

Funding

This work was partially supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and by the Coordination for the Improvements of Higher Education Personnel – Brazil (CAPES).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adiel Teixeira de Almeida.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 9.

Table 9 Glossary for visualizations

Appendix 2

See Table 10.

Table 10 Variables description and collection process

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roselli, L.R.P., de Almeida, A.T. & Frej, E.A. Decision neuroscience for improving data visualization of decision support in the FITradeoff method. Oper Res Int J 19, 933–953 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-018-00445-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Decision neuroscience
  • Multicriteria decision making/aiding
  • MCDM/A
  • Eye-tracking
  • FITradeoff
  • Decision support system