↓ Skip to main content

A gaze bias with coarse spatial indexing during a gambling task

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Neurodynamics, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
A gaze bias with coarse spatial indexing during a gambling task
Published in
Cognitive Neurodynamics, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11571-017-9463-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noha Mohsen Zommara, Muneyoshi Takahashi, Kajornvut Ounjai, Johan Lauwereyns

Abstract

Researchers have used eye-tracking methods to infer cognitive processes during decision making in choice tasks involving visual materials. Gaze likelihood analysis has shown a cascading effect, suggestive of a causal role for the gaze in preference formation during evaluative decision making. According to the gaze bias hypothesis, the gaze serves to build commitment gradually towards a choice. Here, we applied gaze likelihood analysis in a two-choice version of the well-known Iowa Gambling Task. This task requires active learning of the value of different choice options. As such, it does not involve visual preference formation, but choice optimization through learning. In Experiment 1 we asked subjects to choose between two decks with different payoff structures, and to give their responses using mouse clicks. Two groups of subjects were exposed to stable versus varying outcome contingencies. The analysis revealed a pronounced gaze bias towards the chosen stimuli in both groups of subjects, plateauing at more than 400 ms before the choice. The early plateauing suggested that the gaze effect partially reflected eye-hand coordination. In Experiment 2 we asked subjects to give responses using a key press. The results again showed a clear gaze bias towards the chosen deck, this time without any influence from eye-hand coordination. In both experiments, there was a clear gaze bias towards the choice even though the gaze fixations did not narrowly focus on the spatial positions of choice options. Taken together, the data suggested a role for gaze in coarse spatial indexing during non-perceptual decision making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 25%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Neuroscience 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2017.
All research outputs
#17,922,331
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Neurodynamics
#169
of 321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#307,272
of 439,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Neurodynamics
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 321 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.