ArticleBehavior research methods2022
Tracking strategy changes using machine learning classifiers.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Task representation and individual differences affect strategy selection and problem-solving performance.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In complex tasks, high performers often have better strategies than low performers, even with similar amounts of practice. Relatively little research has examined how people form and change strategies in tasks that permit a large set of strategies. One challenge with such research is identifying strategies based on behavior. Three algorithms were developed that track the task features people use in their strategies while performing a complex task. Two of these algorithms were based on task-general, machine-learning classifiers: a support vector machine and a decision tree algorithm. The third was a task-specific algorithm. Data from several strategies in a complex task were simulated, and the algorithms were tested to see how well they identified the underlying features of the simulated strategy. The two machine-learning classifiers performed better than the task-specific algorithm. However, the two classifiers differed on how well they identified different types of strategies. The first two studies show that the ability of these algorithms to recover the underlying strategy depends on the complexity of the strategy relative to the quantity of performance data available. If the underlying strategy changes too frequently, then the performance of the algorithms suffers. However, results from the third study show that it is possible to use these algorithms to track strategy changes that occur in a task. The fourth study examines performance on data from human participants. This approach to tracking strategy exploration may enable further development of theories about how people search for and select effective strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34704215What 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.