ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2020
Using dynamic monitoring of choices to predict and understand risk preferences.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- NOC4L: An Emerging Dual-Action Target for Cancer Prognosis and Immunotherapy.Applied biochemistry and biotechnology · 2026Article
- The temporal dynamics of self-control.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Pause before action: Waiting short time as a simple and resource-rational boost.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Unraveling the neural basis of repeated moral decisions with mouse tracking and fMRI.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Attribute latencies causally shape intertemporal decisions.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Distinct neural networks of task engagement and choice response in moral, risky, and ambiguous decision-making: An ALE meta-analysis.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Hands-on false memories: a combined study with distributional semantics and mouse-tracking.Psychological research · 2023Article
- Deciding While Acting-Mid-Movement Decisions Are More Strongly Affected by Action Probability than Reward Amount.eNeuro · 2023Article
- Filling the gaps: Cognitive control as a critical lens for understanding mechanisms of value-based decision-making.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2022Review
- Eating contexts determine the efficacy of nutrient warning labels to promote healthy food choices.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) show subtle signs of uncertainty when choices are more difficult.Cognition · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Navigating conflict is integral to decision-making, serving a central role both in the subjective experience of choice as well as contemporary theories of how we choose. However, the lack of a sensitive, accessible, and interpretable metric of conflict has led researchers to focus on choice itself rather than how individuals arrive at that choice. Using mouse-tracking-continuously sampling computer mouse location as participants decide-we demonstrate the theoretical and practical uses of dynamic assessments of choice from decision onset through conclusion. Specifically, we use mouse tracking to index conflict, quantified by the relative directness to the chosen option, in a domain for which conflict is integral: decisions involving risk. In deciding whether to accept risk, decision makers must integrate gains, losses, status quos, and outcome probabilities, a process that inevitably involves conflict. Across three preregistered studies, we tracked participants' motor movements while they decided whether to accept or reject gambles. Our results show that 1) mouse-tracking metrics of conflict sensitively detect differences in the subjective value of risky versus certain options; 2) these metrics of conflict strongly predict participants' risk preferences (loss aversion and decreasing marginal utility), even on a single-trial level; 3) these mouse-tracking metrics outperform participants' reaction times in predicting risk preferences; and 4) manipulating risk preferences via a broad versus narrow bracketing manipulation influences conflict as indexed by mouse tracking. Together, these results highlight the importance of measuring conflict during risky choice and demonstrate the usefulness of mouse tracking as a tool to do so.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.