Inefficient Eye Movements: Gamification Improves Task Execution, But Not Fixation Strategy.

Q2 Medicine
Warren R G James, Josephine Reuther, Ellen Angus, Alasdair D F Clarke, Amelia R Hunt
{"title":"Inefficient Eye Movements: Gamification Improves Task Execution, But Not Fixation Strategy.","authors":"Warren R G James, Josephine Reuther, Ellen Angus, Alasdair D F Clarke, Amelia R Hunt","doi":"10.3390/vision3030048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Decisions about where to fixate are highly variable and often inefficient. In the current study, we investigated whether such decisions would improve with increased motivation. Participants had to detect a discrimination target, which would appear in one of two boxes, but only after they chose a location to fixate. The distance between boxes determines which location to fixate to maximise the probability of being able to see the target: participants should fixate between the two boxes when they are close together, and on one of the two boxes when they are far apart. We \"gamified\" this task, giving participants easy-to-track rewards that were contingent on discrimination accuracy. Their decisions and performance were compared to previous results that were gathered in the absence of this additional motivation. We used a Bayesian beta regression model to estimate the size of the effect and associated variance. The results demonstrate that discrimination accuracy does indeed improve in the presence of performance-related rewards. However, there was no difference in eye movement strategy between the two groups, suggesting this improvement in accuracy was not due to the participants making more optimal eye movement decisions. Instead, the motivation encouraged participants to expend more effort on other aspects of the task, such as paying more attention to the boxes and making fewer response errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":36586,"journal":{"name":"Vision (Switzerland)","volume":"3 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6802810/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vision (Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/vision3030048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Decisions about where to fixate are highly variable and often inefficient. In the current study, we investigated whether such decisions would improve with increased motivation. Participants had to detect a discrimination target, which would appear in one of two boxes, but only after they chose a location to fixate. The distance between boxes determines which location to fixate to maximise the probability of being able to see the target: participants should fixate between the two boxes when they are close together, and on one of the two boxes when they are far apart. We "gamified" this task, giving participants easy-to-track rewards that were contingent on discrimination accuracy. Their decisions and performance were compared to previous results that were gathered in the absence of this additional motivation. We used a Bayesian beta regression model to estimate the size of the effect and associated variance. The results demonstrate that discrimination accuracy does indeed improve in the presence of performance-related rewards. However, there was no difference in eye movement strategy between the two groups, suggesting this improvement in accuracy was not due to the participants making more optimal eye movement decisions. Instead, the motivation encouraged participants to expend more effort on other aspects of the task, such as paying more attention to the boxes and making fewer response errors.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

低效的眼动:游戏化提高了任务执行,但不能提高固定策略。
关于在哪里解决问题的决定是高度可变的,而且往往效率低下。在目前的研究中,我们调查了这种决策是否会随着动机的增加而改善。参与者必须检测出一个歧视目标,这个目标会出现在两个框中的一个框中,但只有在他们选择了一个固定的位置之后。盒子之间的距离决定了要固定哪个位置,以最大限度地提高看到目标的概率:当两个盒子靠得很近时,参与者应该固定在两个盒子之间,当它们相距很远时,应该固定在其中一个盒子上。我们将这项任务“游戏化”,让参与者能够轻松追踪取决于辨别准确性的奖励。他们的决定和表现与之前在没有这种额外动机的情况下收集的结果进行了比较。我们使用贝叶斯贝塔回归模型来估计影响的大小和相关的方差。研究结果表明,在存在与绩效相关的奖励的情况下,辨别准确性确实有所提高。然而,两组之间的眼动策略没有差异,这表明准确性的提高并不是因为参与者做出了更优化的眼动决策。相反,这种动机鼓励参与者在任务的其他方面投入更多的精力,比如更多地关注盒子,减少回答错误。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Vision (Switzerland)
Vision (Switzerland) Health Professions-Optometry
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信