Advertisement

Stuck at the starting line: How the starting procedure influences mouse-tracking data

  • Stefan Scherbaum
  • Pascal J. Kieslich
Article

Abstract

Mouse-tracking is an increasingly popular method to trace cognitive processes. As is common for a novel method, the exact methodological procedures employed in an individual study are still relatively idiosyncratic and the effects of different methodological setups on mouse-tracking measures have not been explored so far. Here, we study the impact of one commonly occurring methodological variation, namely whether participants have to initiate their mouse movements to trigger stimulus presentation (dynamic starting condition) or whether the stimulus is presented automatically after a fixed delay and participants can freely decide when to initiate their movements (static starting condition). We compared data from a previous study in which participants performed a mouse-tracking version of a Simon task with a dynamic starting condition to data from a new study that employed a static starting condition in an otherwise identical setup. Results showed reliable Simon effects and Congruency Sequence effects on response time (RT) and discrete trial-level mouse-tracking measures (i.e., average deviation) in both starting conditions. In contrast, within-trial continuous measures (i.e., extracted temporal segments) were weaker and occurred in a more temporally compressed way in the static compared to the dynamic starting condition. This was in line with generally less consistent movements within and across participants in the static compared to the dynamic condition. Our results suggest that studies that use within-trial continuous measures to assess dynamic aspects of mouse movements should apply dynamic starting procedures to enhance the leakage of cognitive processing into the mouse movements.

Keywords

Mouse-tracking Methodology Boundary conditions Simon task 

Supplementary material

13428_2017_977_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (459 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 459 kb)

References

  1. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 433–436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Buetti, S., & Kerzel, D. (2008). Time course of the Simon effect in pointing movements for horizontal, vertical, and acoustic stimuli: Evidence for a common mechanism. Acta Psychologica, 129(3), 420–428.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Dale, R., Kehoe, C., & Spivey, M. J. (2007). Graded motor responses in the time course of categorizing atypical exemplars. Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dshemuchadse, M., Grage, T., & Scherbaum, S. (2015). Action dynamics reveal two components of cognitive flexibility in a homonym relatedness judgment task. Frontiers in Cognition, 6, 1244.Google Scholar
  5. Dshemuchadse, M., Scherbaum, S., & Goschke, T. (2013). How decisions emerge: Action dynamics in intertemporal decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(1), 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Faulkenberry, T. J., & Rey, A. E. (2014). Extending the reach of mousetracking in numerical cognition: A comment on Fischer and Hartmann (2014). Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1436.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, M. H., & Hartmann, M. (2014). Pushing forward in embodied cognition: May we mouse the mathematical mind? Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1315.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2010). MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 226–241.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Freeman, J. B., Dale, R., & Farmer, T. A. (2011). Hand in Motion Reveals Mind in Motion. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 59.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. JASP Team. (2016). JASP (Version 0.7.5.6). Retrieved from https://jasp-stats.org/
  12. Kieslich, P. J., & Henninger, F. (2017). Mousetrap: An integrated, open-source mouse-tracking package. Behavior Research Methods, 49(5), 1652–1667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kieslich, P. J., & Hilbig, B. E. (2014). Cognitive conflict in social dilemmas: An analysis of response dynamics. Judgment and Decision Making, 9(6), 510–522.Google Scholar
  14. Kieslich, P. J., Wulff, D. U., Henninger, F., Haslbeck, J. M. B., & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2016). Mousetrap: An R package for processing and analyzing mouse-tracking data.  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.596640
  15. Koop, G. J., & Johnson, J. G. (2011). Response dynamics: A new window on the decision process. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 750–758.Google Scholar
  16. Koop, G. J., & Johnson, J. G. (2013). The response dynamics of preferential choice. Cognitive Psychology, 67(4), 151–185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Miller, J., Patterson, T., & Ulrich, R. (2001). Jackknife-based method for measuring LRP onset latency differences. Psychophysiology, 35(1), 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Oxford: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. O’Hora, D., Dale, R., Piiroinen, P. T., & Connolly, F. (2013). Local dynamics in decision making: The evolution of preference within and across decisions. Scientific Reports, 3, 2210.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 437–442.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  22. Scherbaum, S., Dshemuchadse, M., Fischer, R., & Goschke, T. (2010). How decisions evolve: The temporal dynamics of action selection. Cognition, 115(3), 407–416.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Scherbaum, S., Dshemuchadse, M., Leiberg, S., & Goschke, T. (2013). Harder than expected: Increased conflict in clearly disadvantageous intertemporal choices in a computer game. PLOS ONE, 8(11), e79310.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Scherbaum, S., Frisch, S., Dshemuchadse, M., Rudolf, M., & Fischer, R. (in press). The test of both worlds: Identifying feature binding and control processes in congruency sequence tasks by means of action dynamics. Psychological Research.Google Scholar
  25. Scherbaum, S., Frisch, S., Leiberg, S., Lade, S. J., Goschke, T., & Dshemuchadse, M. (2016). Process dynamics in delay discounting decisions: An attractor dynamics approach. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(5), 472–495.Google Scholar
  26. Scherbaum, S., Gottschalk, C., Dshemuchadse, M., & Fischer, R. (2015). Action dynamics in multitasking: The impact of additional task factors on the execution of the prioritized motor movement. Frontiers in Cognition, 6, 934.Google Scholar
  27. Song, J. H., & Nakayama, K. (2008). Numeric comparison in a visually-guided manual reaching task. Cognition, 106(2), 994–1003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Song, J. H., & Nakayama, K. (2009). Hidden cognitive states revealed in choice reaching tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(8), 360–366.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Spivey, M. J. (2007). The Continuity of Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Spivey, M. J., & Dale, R. (2006). Continuous dynamics in real-time cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spivey, M. J., Grosjean, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(29), 10393–10398.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Sullivan, N., Hutcherson, C., Harris, A., & Rangel, A. (2015). Dietary Self-Control Is Related to the Speed With Which Attributes of Healthfulness and Tastiness Are Processed. Psychological Science, 26(2), 122–134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. van Rooij, M. M., Favela, L. H., Malone, M., & Richardson, M. J. (2013). Modeling the Dynamics of Risky Choice. Ecological Psychology, 25(3), 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Experimental Psychology, School of Social SciencesUniversity of MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations