The power of last fixation: Biasing simple choices by gaze-contingent manipulation

Attention biases the process of risky decision-making: Evidence from eye-tracking

Attention determines what kind of option information is processed during risky choices owing to the limitation of visual attention. This paper reviews research on the relationship between higher-complexity risky decision-making and attention as illustrated by eye-tracking to explain the process of risky decision-making by the effect of attention. We demonstrate this process from three stages: the pre-phase guidance of options on attention, the process of attention being biased, and the impact of attention on final risk preference. We conclude that exogenous information can capture attention directly to salient options, thereby altering evidence accumulation. In particular, for multi-attribute risky decision-making, attentional advantages increase the weight of specific attributes, thus biasing risk preference in different directions. We highlight the significance of understanding how people use available information to weigh risks from an information-processing perspective via process data.

Gaze differences in configural and elemental evaluation during multi-attribute decision-making

Introduction

While many everyday choices are between multi-attribute options, how attribute values are integrated to allow such choices remains unclear. Recent findings suggest a distinction between elemental (attribute-by-attribute) and configural (holistic) evaluation of multi-attribute options, with different neural substrates. Here, we asked if there are behavioral or gaze pattern differences between these putatively distinct modes of multi-attribute decision-making.

Methods

Thirty-nine healthy men and women learned the monetary values of novel multi-attribute pseudo-objects (fribbles) and then made choices between pairs of these objects while eye movements were tracked. Value was associated with individual attributes in the elemental condition, and with unique combinations of attributes in the configural condition. Choice, reaction time, gaze fixation time on options and individual attributes, and within- and between-option gaze transitions were recorded.

Results

There were systematic behavioral differences between elemental and configural conditions. Elemental trials had longer reaction times and more between-option transitions, while configural trials had more within-option transitions. The effect of last fixation on choice was more pronounced in the configural condition.

Discussion

We observed differences in gaze patterns and the influence of last fixation location on choice in multi-attribute value-based choices depending on how value is associated with those attributes. This adds support for the claim that multi-attribute option values may emerge either elementally or holistically, reminiscent of similar distinctions in multi-attribute object recognition. This may be important to consider in neuroeconomics research that involve visually-presented complex objects.

Monkeys exhibit human-like gaze biases in economic decisions

In economic decision-making individuals choose between items based on their perceived value. For both humans and nonhuman primates, these decisions are often carried out while shifting gaze between the available options. Recent studies in humans suggest that these shifts in gaze actively influence choice, manifesting as a bias in favor of the items that are viewed first, viewed last, or viewed for the overall longest duration in a given trial. This suggests a mechanism that links gaze behavior to the neural computations underlying value-based choices. In order to identify this mechanism, it is first necessary to develop and validate a suitable animal model of this behavior. To this end, we have created a novel value-based choice task for macaque monkeys that captures the essential features of the human paradigms in which gaze biases have been observed. Using this task, we identified gaze biases in the monkeys that were both qualitatively and quantitatively similar to those in humans. In addition, the monkeys' gaze biases were well-explained using a sequential sampling model framework previously used to describe gaze biases in humans-the first time this framework has been used to assess value-based decision mechanisms in nonhuman primates. Together, these findings suggest a common mechanism that can explain gaze-related choice biases across species, and open the way for mechanistic studies to identify the neural origins of this behavior.

Cognitive process underlying ultimatum game: An eye-tracking study from a dual-system perspective

According to the dual-system theories, the decisions in an ultimatum game (UG) are governed by the automatic System 1 and the controlled System 2. The former drives the preference for fairness, whereas the latter drives the self-interest motive. However, the association between the contributions of the two systems in UG and the cognitive process needs more direct evidence. In the present study, we used the process dissociation procedure to estimate the contributions of the two systems and recorded participants eye movements to examine the cognitive processes underlying UG decisions. Results showed that the estimated contributions of the two systems are uncorrelated and that they demonstrate a dissociated pattern of associations with third variables, such as reaction time (RT) and mean fixation duration (MFD). Furthermore, the relative time advantage (RTA) and the transitions between the two payoffs can predict the final UG decisions. Our findings provide evidence for the independent contributions of preference for fairness (System 1) and self-interest maximizing (System 2) inclinations to UG and shed light on the underlying processes.

Does Attention Increase the Value of Choice Alternatives?

A growing recognition of the role of attention in decision-making has been driven by both the technology of eye tracking and the development of models that explicitly incorporate attention. One result of this convergence is the arresting claim that attention, by itself, can increase the perceived value of a decision alternative. In this review, we cover the origins of that claim, its empirical foundation, and the reasoning that supports it. The conclusion is that, to date, there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim. Alternative explanations for the extant evidentiary base are discussed, as is the balance between the bottom-up influence of empirical evidence and the top-down commitment to a conceptual framework.