KH2017_raw: Raw mouse-tracking dataset from Kieslich & Henninger (2017)

In mousetrap: Process and Analyze Mouse-Tracking Data

Raw mouse-tracking dataset from Kieslich & Henninger (2017)

Description

Raw mouse-tracking dataset from Kieslich & Henninger (2017), an experiment using the material and procedure of experiment 1 by Dale et al. (2007). A preprocessed (as opposed to raw) version of the same data can be found in KH2017.

Usage

KH2017_raw

Format

A data.frame with 1140 rows and 19 variables. The data.frame is based on the combined raw data that were created using read_opensesame from the readbulk library. For ease of use, unnecessary columns were excluded.

The variables included relate to the item that was presented (Exemplar), the answer categories (Category1 and Category2), the subject identifier (subject_nr), the subjects' response (response), the correctness of the response (response) as well as the mouse-tracking variables (timestamps_get_response, xpos_get_response and ypos_get_response)

Each mouse-tracking variable contains a list of values (separated by ', ')

• one entry for each recorded position of the mouse. The position coordinates are given in pixels, such that values of zero for both xpos_get_response and ypos_get_response indicate that the cursor is located in the center of the screen. Both variables increase in value as the mouse moves toward the bottom right. Timestamps are given in milliseconds.

Details

The data stem from a study by Kieslich & Henninger (2017) which used the material and procedure of experiment 1 by Dale et al. (2007). In this experiment, participants have to assign exemplars (e.g., "whale") to one of two categories (e.g., "fish" or "mammal") by clicking on the button corresponding to the correct category. All exemplars and categories from the original study were translated to and presented in German.

The data was collected in OpenSesame using the mousetrap plugin (Kieslich & Henninger, 2017).

Across the 19 trials of the experiment, 60 participants categorized 13 exemplars that were typical of their category and 6 atypical exemplars for which this was not the case. For the atypical exemplars (e.g., "whale"), the competing category ("fish") was selected to compete with the correct category ("mammal"). The hypothesis under investigation is whether participants' mouse trajectories deviate more towards the competing category for the atypical exemplars, indicating increased conflict between the response options.

References

Kieslich, P. J., & Henninger, F. (2017). Mousetrap: An integrated, open-source mouse-tracking package. Behavior Research Methods, 49(5), 1652-1667. \Sexpr[results=rd]{tools:::Rd_expr_doi("10.3758/s13428-017-0900-z")}

Dale, R., Kehoe, C., & Spivey, M. J. (2007). Graded motor responses in the time course of categorizing atypical exemplars. Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 15-28. \Sexpr[results=rd]{tools:::Rd_expr_doi("10.3758/BF03195938")}

mousetrap documentation built on Oct. 23, 2023, 5:08 p.m.