Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39607544›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2024

Input device matters for measures of behaviour in online experiments.

Matthew Warburton, Carlo Campagnoli, Mark Mon-Williams, Faisal Mushtaq, J Ryan Morehead

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Matthew WarburtonSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. pscmwa@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5309-4424
Carlo CampagnoliSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9794-4475
Mark Mon-WilliamsSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7595-8545
Faisal MushtaqSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7881-1127
J Ryan MoreheadSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5724-3028

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies of perception, cognition, and action increasingly rely on measures derived from the movements of a cursor to investigate how psychological processes unfold over time. This method is one of the most sensitive measures available for remote experiments conducted online, but experimenters have little control over the input device used by participants, typically a mouse or trackpad. These two devices require biomechanically distinct movements to operate, so measures extracted from cursor tracking data may differ between input devices. We investigated this in two online experiments requiring participants to execute goal-directed movements. We identify several measures that are critically influenced by the choice of input device using a kinematic decomposition of the recorded cursor trajectories. Those using a trackpad were slower to acquire targets, mainly attributable to greater times required to initiate movements and click on targets, despite showing greater peak speeds and lower variability in their movements. We believe there is a substantial risk that behavioural disparities caused by the input device used could be misidentified as differences in psychological processes. We urge researchers to collect data on input devices in online experiments and carefully consider and account for the effect they may have on their experimental data.

Indexed as

Psychomotor PerformanceAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaComputer PeripheralsFemaleHumansMaleMovementYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39607544
PMCPMC11604694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.