4.6 Article

Decision landscapes: visualizing mouse-tracking data

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 4, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.170482

关键词

decision making; mouse tracking; dynamical systems

资金

  1. Government of Ireland Postdoctoral Fellowship [GOIPD/2015/481]
  2. Internationalisation Program of the University of Naples Federico II under the scope of the Memorandum of Understanding
  3. University of Naples Federico II
  4. National University of Ireland Galway

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Computerized paradigms have enabled gathering rich data on human behaviour, including information on motor execution of a decision, e.g. by tracking mouse cursor trajectories. These trajectories can reveal novel information about ongoing decision processes. As the number and complexity of mouse-tracking studies increase, more sophisticated methods are needed to analyse the decision trajectories. Here, we present a new computational approach to generating decision landscape visualizations based on mouse-tracking data. A decision landscape is an analogue of an energy potential field mathematically derived from the velocity of mouse movement during a decision. Visualized as a three-dimensional surface, it provides a comprehensive overview of decision dynamics. Employing the dynamical systems theory framework, we develop a new method for generating decision landscapes based on arbitrary number of trajectories. This approach not only generates three-dimensional illustration of decision landscapes, but also describes mouse trajectories by a number of interpretable parameters. These parameters characterize dynamics of decisions in more detail compared with conventional measures, and can be compared across experimental conditions, and even across individuals. The decision landscape visualization approach is a novel tool for analysing mouse trajectories during decision execution, which can provide new insights into individual differences in the dynamics of decision making.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据