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

Does precrastination explain why some observers are suboptimal in a visual search task?

How do we decide where to search for a target? Optimal search relies on first considering the relative informational value of different locations and then executing eye movements to the best options. However, many participants consistently move their eyes to locations that can be easily ascertained to neither contain the target nor provide new information about the target's location. Here, we asked whether this suboptimal search behaviour represents a specific example of a general tendency towards precrastination: starting sub-goals of a task before they are needed, and in so doing, spending longer time on doing the task than is necessary. To test this hypothesis, we asked 200 participants to do two tasks: retrieve two heavy buckets (one close and one far) and search for a line segment. Precrastination is defined as consistently picking up the closer bucket first, versus the more efficient strategy of picking up the farther bucket first. Search efficiency is the proportion of fixations directed to more cluttered regions of the search array. Based on the pilot data, we predicted an association of precrastination with inefficient search strategies. Personality inventories were also administered to identify stable characteristics associated with these strategies. In the final dataset, there was no clear association between search strategy and precrastination, nor did these correlate strongly with any of the personality measures collected. This article received in-principle acceptance (IPA) at Royal Society Open Science on 29 January 2020. The accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript, not including results and discussion, may be found at https://osf.io/p2sjx. This preregistration was performed prior to data collection and analysis.

The role of framing, agency and uncertainty in a focus-divide dilemma

How to prioritise multiple objectives is a common dilemma of daily life. A simple and effective decision rule is to focus resources when the tasks are difficult, and divide when tasks are easy. Nonetheless, in experimental paradigms of this dilemma, participants make highly variable and suboptimal strategic decisions when asked to allocate resources to two competing goals that vary in difficulty. We developed a new version in which participants had to choose where to park a fire truck between houses of varying distances apart. Unlike in the previous versions of the dilemma, participants approached the optimal strategy in this task. Three key differences between the fire truck version and previous versions of the task were investigated: (1) Framing (whether the objectives are familiar or abstract), by comparing a group who placed cartoon trucks between houses to a group performing the same task with abstract shapes; (2) Agency (how much of the task is under the participants' direct control), by comparing groups who controlled the movement of the truck to those who did not; (3) Uncertainty, by adding variability to the driving speed of the truck to make success or failure on a given trial more difficult to predict. Framing and agency did not influence strategic decisions. When adding variability to outcomes, however, decisions shifted away from optimal. The results suggest choices become more variable when the outcome is less certain, consistent with exploration of response alternatives triggered by an inability to predict success.

Six of one, half dozen of the other: Suboptimal prioritizing for equal and unequal alternatives

It is possible to accomplish multiple goals when available resources are abundant, but when the tasks are difficult and resources are limited, it is better to focus on one task and complete it successfully than to divide your efforts and fail on both. Previous research has shown that people rarely apply this logic when faced with prioritizing dilemmas. The pairs of tasks in previous research had equal utility, which according to some models, can disrupt decision-making. We investigated whether the equivalence of two tasks contributes to suboptimal decisions about how to prioritize them. If so, removing or manipulating the arbitrary nature of the decision between options should facilitate optimal decisions about whether to focus effort on one goal or divide effort over two. Across all three experiments, however, participants did not appropriately adjust their decisions with task difficulty. The only condition in which participants adopted a strategy that approached optimal was when they had voluntarily placed more reward on one task over the other. For the task that was more rewarded, choices were modified more effectively with task difficulty. However, participants were more likely to choose to distribute rewards equally than unequally. The results demonstrate that situations involving choices between options with equal utility are not avoided and are even slightly preferred over unequal options, despite unequal options having larger potential gains and leading to more effective prioritizing strategies.

Investigating the effect of losses and gains on effortful engagement during an incentivized Go/NoGo task through anticipatory cortical oscillatory changes

Losses usually have greater subjective value (SV) than gains of equal nominal value but often cause a relative deterioration in effortful performance. Since losses and gains induce differing approach/avoidance behavioral tendencies, we explored whether incentive type interacted with approach/avoidance motor-sets. Alpha- and beta-band event-related desynchronization (ERD) was hypothesized to be weakest when participants expected a loss and prepared an inhibitory motor-set, and strongest when participants expected a gain and prepared an active motor-set. It was also hypothesized that effort would modulate reward and motor-set-related cortical activation patterns. Participants completed a cued Go/NoGo task while expecting a reward (+10p), avoiding a loss (-10p), or receiving no incentive (0p); and while expecting a NoGo cue with a probability of either .75 or .25. Pre-movement alpha- and beta-band EEG power was analyzed using the ERD method, and the SV of effort was evaluated using a cognitive effort discounting task. Gains incentivized faster RTs and stronger preparatory alpha band ERD compared to loss and no incentive conditions, while inhibitory motor-sets resulted in significantly weaker alpha-band ERD. However, there was no interaction between incentive and motor-sets. Participants were more willing to expend effort in losses compared to gain trials, although the SV of effort was not associated with ERD patterns or RTs. Results suggest that incentive and approach/avoidance motor tendencies modulate cortical activations prior to a speeded RT movement independently, and are not associated with the economic value of effort. The present results favor attentional explanations of the effect of incentive modality on effort.