Design factors in mouse-tracking: What makes a difference?

Investigating cognitive processes by analyzing mouse movements has become a popular method in many psychological disciplines. When creating mouse-tracking experiments, researchers face many design choices—for example, whether participants indicate responses by clicking a button or just by entering the button area. Hitherto, numerous different settings have been employed, but little is known about how these methodological differences affect mouse-tracking data. We systematically investigated the influences of three central design factors, using a classic mouse-tracking paradigm in which participants classified typical and atypical exemplars. In separate experiments, we manipulated the response indication, mouse sensitivity, and starting procedure. The core finding that mouse movements deviate more toward the nonchosen option for atypical exemplars was replicated in all conditions. However, the size of this effect varied. Specifically, it was larger when participants indicated responses via click and when they were instructed to initialize the movement early. Trajectory shapes also differed between setups. For example, a dynamic start led to mostly curved trajectories, responses via click led to a mix of straight and “change-of-mind” trajectories, and responses via touch led to mostly straight trajectories. Moreover, the distribution of curvature indices was classified as bimodal in some setups and as unimodal in others. Because trajectory curvature and shape are frequently used to make inferences about psychological theories, such as differentiating between dynamic and dual-system models, this study shows that the specific design must be carefully considered when drawing theoretical inferences. All methodological designs and analyses were implemented using open-source software and are available from https://osf.io/xdp7a/ .

[1]  Gregory J. Koop An assessment of the temporal dynamics of moral decisions , 2013, Judgment and Decision Making.

[2]  Stephanie Huette,et al.  Continuous dynamics of color categorization , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[3]  Cendri A. C. Hutcherson,et al.  Dietary Self-Control Is Related to the Speed With Which Attributes of Healthfulness and Tastiness Are Processed , 2015, Psychological science.

[4]  Jonathan J. Rolison,et al.  The time course of conflict on the Cognitive Reflection Test , 2016, Cognition.

[5]  Martin H. Fischer,et al.  Pushing forward in embodied cognition: may we mouse the mathematical mind? , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[6]  Jonathan B Freeman,et al.  Neural pattern similarity reveals the inherent intersection of social categories , 2016, Nature Neuroscience.

[7]  Megan H. Papesh,et al.  Memory in motion: Movement dynamics reveal memory strength , 2012, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[8]  Thomas J. Faulkenberry,et al.  Tracking the Continuous Dynamics of Numerical Processing: A Brief Review and Editorial , 2018, J. Numer. Cogn..

[9]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[10]  Paul E. Stillman,et al.  How Mouse-tracking Can Advance Social Cognitive Theory , 2018, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[11]  Joseph G. Johnson,et al.  Response dynamics: A new window on the decision process , 2011, Judgment and Decision Making.

[12]  Martin Schoemann,et al.  Validating mouse-tracking: How design factors influence action dynamics in intertemporal decision making , 2019, Behavior research methods.

[13]  Rick Dale,et al.  Assessing bimodality to detect the presence of a dual cognitive process , 2013, Behavior research methods.

[14]  Jonas M. B. Haslbeck,et al.  Mouse-tracking: Detecting Types in Movement Trajectories , 2019 .

[15]  M. Bastin,et al.  Beyond Reaction Times: Incorporating Mouse-Tracking Measures into the Implicit Association Test to Examine its Underlying Process , 2012 .

[16]  Stefan Scherbaum,et al.  Stuck at the starting line: How the starting procedure influences mouse-tracking data , 2017, Behavior Research Methods.

[17]  Felix Henninger,et al.  Mousetrap: An integrated, open-source mouse-tracking package , 2017, Behavior Research Methods.

[18]  Stefan Scherbaum,et al.  Unraveling the sub-processes of selective attention: insights from dynamic modeling and continuous behavior , 2015, Cognitive Processing.

[19]  Benjamin E. Hilbig,et al.  Cognitive conflict in social dilemmas: An analysis of response dynamics , 2014, Judgment and Decision Making.

[20]  Thomas A. Farmer,et al.  Hand in Motion Reveals Mind in Motion , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[21]  Jonathan B. Freeman,et al.  Doing Psychological Science by Hand , 2018, Current directions in psychological science.

[22]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Continuous Dynamics in Real-Time Cognition , 2006 .

[23]  T. Goschke,et al.  How decisions emerge: action dynamics in intertemporal decision making. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[24]  Kerri L. Johnson,et al.  Will a category cue attract you? Motor output reveals dynamic competition across person construal. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[25]  Joseph G. Johnson,et al.  The response dynamics of preferential choice , 2013, Cognitive Psychology.

[26]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Graded motor responses in the time course of categorizing atypical exemplars , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[27]  Nathan F. Lepora,et al.  Embodied Choice: How Action Influences Perceptual Decision Making , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[28]  Kerri L. Johnson,et al.  Early Processing of Gendered Facial Cues Predicts the Electoral Success of Female Politicians , 2014 .

[29]  Pascal J. Kieslich,et al.  Thinking dynamics and individual differences: Mouse-tracking analysis of the denominator neglect task , 2018, Judgment and Decision Making.

[30]  Nicholas D. Duran,et al.  The hidden appeal and aversion to political conspiracies as revealed in the response dynamics of partisans , 2017 .

[31]  Jonathan B Freeman,et al.  Abrupt category shifts during real-time person perception , 2014, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[32]  Balazs Aczel,et al.  Is Action Execution Part of the Decision-Making Process? An Investigation of the Embodied Choice Hypothesis , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[33]  E. Erdfelder,et al.  Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[34]  Gregory J. Koop,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition The Response Dynamics of Recognition Memory: Sensitivity and Bias , 2019 .

[35]  N. Ambady,et al.  Motions of the Hand Expose the Partial and Parallel Activation of Stereotypes , 2009, Psychological science.

[36]  T. Goschke,et al.  How decisions evolve: The temporal dynamics of action selection , 2010, Cognition.

[37]  Jonathan B Freeman,et al.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Race is Gendered : How Covarying Phenotypes and Stereotypes Bias Sex Categorization , 2011 .

[38]  Joseph G. Johnson,et al.  Process-Tracing Methods in Decision Making: On Growing Up in the 70s , 2017 .

[39]  Jonathan B Freeman,et al.  MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[40]  Paul E. Stillman,et al.  Resisting Temptation: Tracking How Self-Control Conflicts Are Successfully Resolved in Real Time , 2017, Psychological science.

[41]  J. Freeman,et al.  Advanced mouse-tracking analytic techniques for enhancing psychological science , 2015 .

[42]  Rick Dale,et al.  The Cognitive Dynamics of Negated Sentence Verification , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

[43]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[44]  Nalini Ambady,et al.  Hand Movements Reveal the Time-course of Shape and Pigmentation Processing in Face Categorization , 2022 .

[45]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences , 2011, Behavior Research Methods.