A random-object-kinematogram plugin for web-based research: implementing oriented objects enables varying coherence levels and stimulus congruency levels
Tóm tắt
One of the recent major advances in cognitive psychology research has been the option of web-based in addition to lab-based experimental research. This option fosters experimental research by increasing the pace and size of collecting data sets. Importantly, web-based research profits heavily from integrating tasks that are frequently applied in cognitive psychology into open access software. For instance, an open access random-dot kinematogram (RDK) plugin has recently been integrated into the jsPsych software for web-based research. This plugin allows researchers to implement experimental tasks with varying coherence levels (with that varying task difficulty) of moving dots or varying signal to noise ratios of colored dots. Here, we introduce the random-object kinematogram (ROK) plugin for the jsPsych software which, among other new features, enables researchers to include oriented objects (e.g., triangles or arrows) instead of dots as stimuli. This permits experiments with feature congruency (e.g., upwards-moving triangles pointing upwards) or incongruency (e.g., upwards-moving triangles pointing downwards), allowing to induce gradual degrees of stimulus interference, in addition to gradual degrees of task difficulty. We elaborate on possible set-ups with this plugin in two experiments examining participants’ RTs and error rates on different combinations of coherence and congruency levels. Results showed increased RTs and error rates on trials with lower coherence percentages, and on trials with lower congruency levels. We discuss other new features of the ROK plugin and conclude that the possibility of gradually varying the coherence level and congruency level independently from each other offers novel possibilities when conducting web-based experiments.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, R.H. (2015). Parsimonious Mixed Models. arXiv:1506.04967v2.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 51. arXiv:1406.5823.
Benetti, S., Zonca, J., Ferrari, A., Rezk, M., Rabini, G., & Collignon, O. (2021). Visual motion processing recruits regions selective for auditory motion in early deaf individuals. NeuroImage, 230(2020), 117816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.117816
Bhui, R. (2019). A statistical test for the optimality of deliberative time allocation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 26(3), 855–867.
Braem, S., Bugg, J.M., Schmidt, J.R., Crump, M.J.C., Weissman, D.H., Notebaert, W., & Egner, T. (2019). Measuring Adaptive Control in Conflict Tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(9), 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.002.
Britten, K.H., Shadlen, M.N., Newsome, W.T., & Movshon, J. (1992). The analysis of visual motion: a comparison of neuronal and psychophysical performance. The Journal of Neuroscience, 12 (12), 4745–4765. http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed%&id=1464765&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks%5Cnpapers3://publication/uuid/E8CEBDDA-F6CF-4392-AEE5-5F9E687F3ED1.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S.D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.
Cohen, J.D., Dunbar, K., & Mcclelland, J.L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97(3), 332– 361.
Crump, M.J.C., Gong, Z., & Milliken, B. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13(2), 316–321.
Crump, M.J.C., McDonnell, J.V., & Gureckis, T.M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a Tool for Experimental Behavioral Research. PLoS ON, 8(3).
Crump, M.J.C., Vaquero, J.M.M., & Milliken, B. (2008). Context-specific learning and control: the roles of awareness, task relevance, and relative salience. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 22– 36.
Danielmeier, C., Eichele, T., Forstmann, B.U., Tittgemeyer, M., & Ullsperger, M. (2011). Posterior medial frontal cortex activity predicts post-error adaptations in task-related visual and motor areas. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(5), 1780–1789.
de Leeuw, J.R. (2015). jsPsych: a JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a Web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47(1), 1–12.
Dignath, D., Johannsen, L., Hommel, B., & Kiesel, A. (2019). Reconciling cognitive-control and episodic-retrieval accounts of sequential conflict modulation: Binding of control-states into event-files. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(9), 1265–1270.
Dignath, D., Kiesel, A., Schiltenwolf, M., & Hazeltine, E. (2021). Multiple annual meeting of the cognitive science society: congruence sequence effects emerge due to modulation of irrelevant prime activity and utilization of temporal order information. Journal of Cognition, 4(1), 1–19.
Eriksen, B., & Eriksen, C. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Journal of Materials and Environmental Science, 39(2), 175–191.
Frings, C., Hommel, B., Koch, I., Rothermund, K., Dignath, D., Giesen, C., ..., Philipp, A. (2020). Binding and Retrieval in Action Control (BRAC). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(5), 375–387.
Guterstam, A., & Graziano, M.S.A. (2020). Implied motion as a possible mechanism for encoding other people’s attention. Progress in Neurobiology, 190(March), 101797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2020.101797
Guterstam, A., Wilterson, A.I., Wachtell, D., & Graziano, M.S.A. (2020). Other people’s gaze encoded as implied motion in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(23), 13162–13167.
Heinemann, A., Kunde, W., & Kiesel, A. (2009). Context-specific prime-congruency effects: on the role of conscious stimulus representations for cognitive control. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(4), 966–976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2009.08.009
Judd, C.M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D.A. (2017). Experiments with More Than One Random Factor: designs, Analytic Models, and Statistical Power. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(2016), 601–625.
Kang, Y.H.R., Löffler, A., Jeurissen, D., Zylberberg, A., Wolpert, D.M., & Shadlen, M.N. (2021). Multiple decisions about one object involve parallel sensory acquisition but time-multiplexed evidence incorporation. eLife, 10, 1–44.
Kayser, A.S., Erickson, D.T., Buchsbaum, B.R., & D’Esposito, M. (2010). Neural representations of relevant and irrelevant features in perceptual decision making. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(47), 15778–15789.
Krueger, P.M., van Vugt, M.K., Simen, P., Nystrom, L., Holmes, P., & Cohen, J.D. (2017). Evidence accumulation detected in BOLD signal using slow perceptual decision making. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 281, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2017.01.012.
Krzeminski, D., & Zhang, J. (2021). Imperfect Integration: Sensory Congruency Between Multiple Sources Modulates Selective Decision-Making Processes.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P.B., & Christensen, R.H.B. (2017). lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
Lüdecke, D. (2020). sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science. https://cran.r-project.org/package=sjPlot.
Mante, V., Sussillo, D., Shenoy, K.V., & Newsome, W.T. (2013). Context-dependent computation by recurrent dynamics in prefrontal cortex. Nature, 503, 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12742.
Marques, T., Summers, M.T., Fioreze, G., Fridman, M., Dias, R.F., Feller, M.B., & Petreanu, L. (2018). A Role for Mouse Primary Visual Cortex in Motion Perception. Current Biology, 28(11), 1703–1713.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.04.012.
Musslick, S., Bizyaeva, A., Agaron, S., Leonard, N., & Cohen, J.D. (2019). Stability-Flexibility Dilemma in Cognitive Control:A Dynamical System Perspective. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, August? pp. 2420–2426.
Purcell, B.A., & Kiani, R. (2016). Hierarchical decision processes that operate over distinct timescales underlie choice and changes in strategy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(31), E4531–E4540.
Quené, H. (2008). Examples of mixed-effects modelling, pp 1–40.
Quené, H., & Van Den Bergh, H. (2004). On multi-level modeling of data from repeated measures designs: a tutorial. Speech Communication, 43(1-2), 103–121.
R Core Team (2013). R.: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. http://www.r-project.org/.
Rajananda, S., Lau, H., & Odegaard, B. (2018). A Random-Dot Kinematogram for Web-Based Vision Research. Journal of Open Research Software, 6(6).
Ramsey, S.R., Thompson, K.L., McKenzie, M., & Rosenbaum, A. (2016). Psychological research in the internet age: the quality of web-based data. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 354–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.049.
Ritz, H., & Shenhav, A. (2019). Parametric control of distractor-oriented attention. In Proceedings of the 41st annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 967–973).
Schmidt, J.R., & Lemercier, C. (2019). Context-specific proportion congruent effects: compound-cue contingency learning in disguise. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(5), 1119–1130.
Shadlen, M.N., Britten, K.H., Newsome, W.T., & Movshon, J.A. (1996). Computational analysis:Y2K. Journal of Neuroscience, 16(4), 1486–1510.
Shenhav, A., Straccia, M.A., Musslick, S., Botvinick, M.M., & Cohen, J.D. (2018). Dissociable neural mechanisms track evidence accumulation for selection of attention versus action. Nature Communications, 9, 2485. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04841-1.
Spitzer, M.W.H., Kiesel, A., & Dignath, D. (in press). Performance Errors Influence Voluntary Task Choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000991.
Spitzer, M.W.H., Musslick, S., Shvartsman, M., Shenhav, A., & Cohen, J.D. (2019). Asymmetric switch costs as a function of task strength. In Proceedings of the 41th annual conference of the cognitive science society. Montreal, CA.
Steyvers, M., Hawkins, G.E., Karayanidis, F., & Brown, S.D. (2019). A large-scale analysis of task switching practice effects across the lifespan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(36), 17735–17740.
Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology., 18(6), 643–662.
von Lautz, A., Herding, J., & Blankenburg, F. (2019). Neuronal signatures of a random-dot motion comparison task. NeuroImage, 193, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.071
Wendt, M., & Kiesel, A. (2011). Conflict adaptation in time: Foreperiods as contextual cues for attentional adjustment. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(5), 910–916.
Wessel, J.R. (2018). An adaptive orienting theory of error processing. Psychophysiology, 55, 1–21.
Wessel, J.R., & Aron, A.R. (2017). On the Globality of Motor Suppression: Unexpected Events and Their Influence on Behavior and Cognition. Neuron, 93(2), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.12.013.