采用多策略眼动追踪心理测量模型测量智力和识别Raven先进进步法矩阵的认知策略

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Yaohui Liu , Peida Zhan , Yanbin Fu , Qipeng Chen , Kaiwen Man , Yikun Luo
{"title":"采用多策略眼动追踪心理测量模型测量智力和识别Raven先进进步法矩阵的认知策略","authors":"Yaohui Liu ,&nbsp;Peida Zhan ,&nbsp;Yanbin Fu ,&nbsp;Qipeng Chen ,&nbsp;Kaiwen Man ,&nbsp;Yikun Luo","doi":"10.1016/j.intell.2023.101782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Previous studies have found that participants use two cognitive strategies—constructive matching and response elimination—in responding to items in the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM). This study proposed a multi-strategy psychometric model that builds on item responses and also incorporates eye-tracking measures, including but not limited to the proportional time on matrix area (PTM), the rate of toggling (ROT), and the rate of latency to first toggle (RLT). By jointly analyzing item responses and eye-tracking measures, this model can measure each participant's intelligence and identify the cognitive strategy used by each participant for each item in the APM. Several main findings were revealed from an eye-tracking-based APM study using the proposed model: (1) The effects of PTM and RLT on the constructive matching strategy selection probability were positive and higher for the former than the latter, while the effect of ROT was negligible. (2) The average intelligence of participants who used the constructive matching strategy was higher than that of participants who used the response elimination strategy, and participants with higher intelligence were more likely to use the constructive matching strategy. (3) High-intelligence participants increased their use of the constructive matching strategy as item difficulty increased, whereas low-intelligence participants decreased their use as item difficulty increased. (4) Participants took significantly less time using the constructive matching strategy than the response elimination strategy. Overall, the proposed model follows the theory-driven modeling logic and provides a new way of studying cognitive strategy in the APM by presenting quantitative results.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using a multi-strategy eye-tracking psychometric model to measure intelligence and identify cognitive strategy in Raven's advanced progressive matrices\",\"authors\":\"Yaohui Liu ,&nbsp;Peida Zhan ,&nbsp;Yanbin Fu ,&nbsp;Qipeng Chen ,&nbsp;Kaiwen Man ,&nbsp;Yikun Luo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.intell.2023.101782\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Previous studies have found that participants use two cognitive strategies—constructive matching and response elimination—in responding to items in the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM). This study proposed a multi-strategy psychometric model that builds on item responses and also incorporates eye-tracking measures, including but not limited to the proportional time on matrix area (PTM), the rate of toggling (ROT), and the rate of latency to first toggle (RLT). By jointly analyzing item responses and eye-tracking measures, this model can measure each participant's intelligence and identify the cognitive strategy used by each participant for each item in the APM. Several main findings were revealed from an eye-tracking-based APM study using the proposed model: (1) The effects of PTM and RLT on the constructive matching strategy selection probability were positive and higher for the former than the latter, while the effect of ROT was negligible. (2) The average intelligence of participants who used the constructive matching strategy was higher than that of participants who used the response elimination strategy, and participants with higher intelligence were more likely to use the constructive matching strategy. (3) High-intelligence participants increased their use of the constructive matching strategy as item difficulty increased, whereas low-intelligence participants decreased their use as item difficulty increased. (4) Participants took significantly less time using the constructive matching strategy than the response elimination strategy. Overall, the proposed model follows the theory-driven modeling logic and provides a new way of studying cognitive strategy in the APM by presenting quantitative results.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289623000636\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289623000636","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

先前的研究发现,参与者使用两种认知策略——建设性匹配和反应消除——来对雷文高级递进矩阵(APM)中的项目做出反应。本研究提出了一个多策略心理测量模型,该模型建立在项目反应的基础上,并结合了眼动追踪测量,包括但不限于矩阵面积比例时间(PTM)、切换率(ROT)和延迟到第一次切换率(RLT)。该模型通过联合分析项目反应和眼动追踪测量,可以测量每个参与者的智力,并确定每个参与者对APM中每个项目使用的认知策略。基于眼动追踪的APM研究发现:(1)PTM和RLT对建构性匹配策略选择概率的影响为正,且前者高于后者,而ROT的影响可以忽略不计。(2)采用建构性匹配策略的被试的平均智力高于采用反应消除策略的被试,且智力越高的被试更倾向于采用建构性匹配策略。(3)高智力被试对建构性匹配策略的使用随难度的增加而增加,而低智力被试则随难度的增加而减少。(4)建构性匹配策略所花费的时间显著少于反应消除策略。总体而言,该模型遵循理论驱动的建模逻辑,并通过定量结果提供了一种研究APM认知策略的新方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using a multi-strategy eye-tracking psychometric model to measure intelligence and identify cognitive strategy in Raven's advanced progressive matrices

Previous studies have found that participants use two cognitive strategies—constructive matching and response elimination—in responding to items in the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM). This study proposed a multi-strategy psychometric model that builds on item responses and also incorporates eye-tracking measures, including but not limited to the proportional time on matrix area (PTM), the rate of toggling (ROT), and the rate of latency to first toggle (RLT). By jointly analyzing item responses and eye-tracking measures, this model can measure each participant's intelligence and identify the cognitive strategy used by each participant for each item in the APM. Several main findings were revealed from an eye-tracking-based APM study using the proposed model: (1) The effects of PTM and RLT on the constructive matching strategy selection probability were positive and higher for the former than the latter, while the effect of ROT was negligible. (2) The average intelligence of participants who used the constructive matching strategy was higher than that of participants who used the response elimination strategy, and participants with higher intelligence were more likely to use the constructive matching strategy. (3) High-intelligence participants increased their use of the constructive matching strategy as item difficulty increased, whereas low-intelligence participants decreased their use as item difficulty increased. (4) Participants took significantly less time using the constructive matching strategy than the response elimination strategy. Overall, the proposed model follows the theory-driven modeling logic and provides a new way of studying cognitive strategy in the APM by presenting quantitative results.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
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