![]() Glaholt MG, Reingold EM (2011) Eye movement monitoring as a process tracing methodology in decision making research. Glaholt MG, Reingold EM (2009b) Stimulus exposure and gaze bias: a further test of the gaze cascade model. Glaholt MG, Reingold EM (2009a) The time course of gaze bias in visual decision tasks. įranco-Watkins AM, Johnson JG (2011) Applying the decision moving window to risky choice: comparison of eye-tracking and mouse-tracing methods. įiedler S, Glöckner A (2012) The dynamics of decision making in risky choice: an eye-tracking analysis. e585v1) PeerJ PrePrintsįernie G, Tunney RJ (2006) Some decks are better than others: the effect of reinforcer type and task instructions on learning in the Iowa Gambling Task. ĭalmaijer E (2014) Is the low-cost EyeTribe eye tracker any good for research? (No. Ĭui JF, Chen YH, Wang Y, Shum DH, Chan RC (2013) Neural correlates of uncertain decision making: ERP evidence from the Iowa Gambling Task. īull PN, Tippett LJ, Addis DR (2015) Decision making in healthy participants on the Iowa Gambling Task: new insights from an operant approach. īrand M, Recknor EC, Grabenhorst F, Bechara A (2007) Decisions under ambiguity and decisions under risk: correlations with executive functions and comparisons of two different gambling tasks with implicit and explicit rules. īechara A, Damasio H, Damasio AR (2000) Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. (94)90018-3īechara A, Damasio H, Tranel D, Damasio AR (1997) Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. (02)00015-5īechara A, Damasio AR, Damasio H, Anderson SW (1994) Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Taken together, the data suggested a role for gaze in coarse spatial indexing during non-perceptual decision making.īechara A, Damasio H (2002) Decision-making and addiction (part I): impaired activation of somatic states in substance dependent individuals when pondering decisions with negative future consequences. 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. The results again showed a clear gaze bias towards the chosen deck, this time without any influence from eye-hand coordination. In Experiment 2 we asked subjects to give responses using a key press. The early plateauing suggested that the gaze effect partially reflected eye-hand coordination. 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. Two groups of subjects were exposed to stable versus varying outcome contingencies. In Experiment 1 we asked subjects to choose between two decks with different payoff structures, and to give their responses using mouse clicks. As such, it does not involve visual preference formation, but choice optimization through learning. ![]() This task requires active learning of the value of different choice options. Here, we applied gaze likelihood analysis in a two-choice version of the well-known Iowa Gambling Task. According to the gaze bias hypothesis, the gaze serves to build commitment gradually towards a choice. Gaze likelihood analysis has shown a cascading effect, suggestive of a causal role for the gaze in preference formation during evaluative decision making. Researchers have used eye-tracking methods to infer cognitive processes during decision making in choice tasks involving visual materials.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |