Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Biopharmaceutical Factors Influencing Drug Product Design: Overview01:22

Biopharmaceutical Factors Influencing Drug Product Design: Overview

256
Rational drug product design integrates knowledge of the drug’s physicochemical properties, formulation components, manufacturing techniques, and intended route of administration. Each factor influences the drug’s performance, including how it is released, absorbed, and eliminated in the body.The physicochemical properties of a drug—such as solubility, stability, and particle size—affect its compatibility with excipients and the choice of dosage form. Excipients, though...
256
Factorial Design02:01

Factorial Design

13.7K
Factorial Analysis is an experimental design that applies Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) statistical procedures to examine a change in a dependent variable due to more than one independent variable, also known as factors. Changes in worker productivity can be reasoned, for example, to be influenced by salary and other conditions, such as skill level. One way to test this hypothesis is by categorizing salary into three levels (low, moderate, and high) and skills sets into two levels (entry level...
13.7K
Group Design02:01

Group Design

10.3K
The most basic experimental design involves two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The two groups are designed to be the same except for one difference— experimental manipulation. The experimental group gets the experimental manipulation—that is, the treatment or variable being tested—and the control group does not. Since experimental manipulation is the only difference between the experimental and control groups, we can be sure that any differences between...
10.3K
Difference from Background: Limit of Detection01:05

Difference from Background: Limit of Detection

8.2K
The limit of detection (LOD) is the smallest amount of analyte that can be distinguished from the background noise. The LOD value corresponds to the concentration at which the analyte signal is three times larger than the standard deviation of the blank signal. Below this value, the analyte signal cannot be differentiated from the background noise. It is calculated by dividing the calibration slope by 3 times the standard deviation of the blank signals.
The LOD indicates the presence or absence...
8.2K
Electric Potential and Potential Difference01:16

Electric Potential and Potential Difference

5.6K
Suppose a positive test charge moves away from a positive static charge, then the Coulomb force does positive work, and its electric potential energy decreases. The potential energy per unit charge is defined as the electric potential. The electric potential is independent of the test charge.
When a test charge moves from the initial to the final position, the electric potential difference between those positions is defined as the ratio of the change in the potential energy to the charge on the...
5.6K
Identifying Statistically Significant Differences: The F-Test01:14

Identifying Statistically Significant Differences: The F-Test

3.4K
The F-test is used to compare two sample variances to each other or compare the sample variance to the population variance. It is used to decide whether an indeterminate error can explain the difference in their values. The underlying assumptions that allow the use of the F-test include the data set or sets are normally distributed, and the data sets are independent of each other. The test statistic F is calculated by dividing one variance by another. In other words, the square of one standard...
3.4K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

From charm to conflict: Simulating narcissistic interpersonal dynamics with agent-based modeling.

Journal of personality and social psychology·2026
Same author

Experiences in close relationships, interpersonal trust and OXTR expression in individuals with childhood maltreatment.

Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation·2026
Same author

A large-scale dataset of choice and response-time data in intertemporal choice.

Scientific data·2026
Same author

Intact delay discounting but more optimal reward-based decisions in anorexia nervosa during an experiential task.

Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences·2026
Same author

Publisher Correction: Movement tracking of psychological processes: A tutorial using mousetrap.

Behavior research methods·2026
Same author

What predicts suicidality among people who self-injure? Evidence for acquired capability via pain habituation and NSSI severity.

Journal of affective disorders·2025
Same journal

Planned missingness in intensive longitudinal studies: Extensions and comparisons of multiform designs.

Behavior research methods·2026
Same journal

A validity-guided workflow for robust large language model research in psychology.

Behavior research methods·2026
Same journal

Are 7-point Likert scales preferable to 5-point scales in language research?

Behavior research methods·2026
Same journal

Generative psychometrics via AI-GENIE: Automatic item generation and validation with network-integrated evaluation.

Behavior research methods·2026
Same journal

Exploring psychological tradeoffs: Developing and demonstrating an R Shiny app for Pareto optimization.

Behavior research methods·2026
Same journal

The performance of Bayesian fit measures in detecting misspecified multilevel structural equation modeling.

Behavior research methods·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jan 26, 2026

Sex Differences in Mouse Hippocampal Astrocytes after In-Vitro Ischemia
08:32

Sex Differences in Mouse Hippocampal Astrocytes after In-Vitro Ischemia

Published on: October 25, 2016

13.9K

Design factors in mouse-tracking: What makes a difference?

Pascal J Kieslich1,2, Martin Schoemann3, Tobias Grage3

  • 1Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, L13, 17, 68161, Mannheim, Germany. kieslich@psychologie.uni-mannheim.de.

Behavior Research Methods
|April 10, 2019
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Mouse-tracking experiments reveal how design choices impact cognitive process data. Key factors like response indication and starting procedures influence movement trajectories and effect sizes, crucial for accurate psychological inferences.

Keywords:
Cognitive processesDecision-makingExperimental designMouse-trackingResponse dynamics

More Related Videos

Mouse Short- and Long-term Locomotor Activity Analyzed by Video Tracking Software
10:15

Mouse Short- and Long-term Locomotor Activity Analyzed by Video Tracking Software

Published on: June 20, 2013

20.8K
Tracking Mouse Bone Marrow Monocytes In Vivo
12:08

Tracking Mouse Bone Marrow Monocytes In Vivo

Published on: February 27, 2015

10.0K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jan 26, 2026

Sex Differences in Mouse Hippocampal Astrocytes after In-Vitro Ischemia
08:32

Sex Differences in Mouse Hippocampal Astrocytes after In-Vitro Ischemia

Published on: October 25, 2016

13.9K
Mouse Short- and Long-term Locomotor Activity Analyzed by Video Tracking Software
10:15

Mouse Short- and Long-term Locomotor Activity Analyzed by Video Tracking Software

Published on: June 20, 2013

20.8K
Tracking Mouse Bone Marrow Monocytes In Vivo
12:08

Tracking Mouse Bone Marrow Monocytes In Vivo

Published on: February 27, 2015

10.0K

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Human-Computer Interaction
  • Psychological Research Methods

Background:

  • Mouse-tracking is a valuable tool for studying cognitive processes.
  • Methodological variations in mouse-tracking experiments are common but poorly understood.
  • Little is known about how specific design choices influence mouse-tracking data.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To systematically investigate the impact of three key design factors on mouse-tracking data.
  • To determine how response indication, mouse sensitivity, and starting procedure affect movement trajectories and effect sizes.
  • To provide guidance for researchers on methodological considerations in mouse-tracking studies.

Main Methods:

  • A classic mouse-tracking paradigm was used with participants classifying typical and atypical exemplars.
  • Three central design factors were manipulated: response indication (click vs. touch), mouse sensitivity, and starting procedure.
  • Data analysis focused on trajectory deviations, shapes, and curvature indices.

Main Results:

  • The core finding of increased deviation toward the non-chosen option for atypical exemplars was consistent across conditions.
  • The magnitude of this effect was significantly influenced by response indication (larger with click) and early movement initiation.
  • Trajectory shapes varied, with dynamic starts producing curved paths, clicks yielding mixed straight/change-of-mind paths, and touch producing mostly straight paths.

Conclusions:

  • Methodological choices in mouse-tracking experiments significantly affect data, including effect sizes and trajectory characteristics.
  • Researchers must carefully consider design factors when drawing theoretical inferences from mouse-tracking data, particularly concerning models of cognitive processes.
  • Open-source software and data are provided to ensure transparency and reproducibility.