ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Disentangling decision errors from action execution in mouse-tracking studies: The case of effect-based action control.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Has stopping stopped making sense? Disentangling the processes elicited by complex action cancellation paradigms.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Review
- Short-term action-effect bindings encode perceptual transitions rather than perceptual end-states.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Binding continuous response features of extended movements: Integration with discrete response but not stimulus features.Psychological research · 2026Article
- A gaze into the void: Anticipatory saccades toward prevented events.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 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
Mouse-tracking is regarded as a powerful technique to investigate latent cognitive and emotional states. However, drawing inferences from this manifold data source carries the risk of several pitfalls, especially when using aggregated data rather than single-trial trajectories. Researchers might reach wrong conclusions because averages lump together two distinct contributions that speak towards fundamentally different mechanisms underlying between-condition differences: influences from online-processing during action execution and influences from incomplete decision processes. Here, we propose a simple method to assess these factors, thus allowing us to probe whether process-pure interpretations are appropriate. By applying this method to data from 12 published experiments on ideomotor action control, we show that the interpretation of previous results changes when dissociating online processing from decision and initiation errors. Researchers using mouse-tracking to investigate cognition and emotion are therefore well advised to conduct detailed trial-by-trial analyses, particularly when they test for direct leakage of ongoing processing into movement trajectories.
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.