@article{WirthFoersterKundeetal.2020,
  author    = {Wirth, Robert and Foerster, Anna and Kunde, Wilfried and Pfister, Roland},
  title     = {Design choices: Empirical recommendations for designing two-dimensional finger-tracking experiments},
  series = {Behavior Research Methods},
  volume    = {52},
  journal   = {Behavior Research Methods},
  doi       = {10.3758/s13428-020-01409-0},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-235569},
  pages     = {2394-2416},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {The continuous tracking of mouse or finger movements has become an increasingly popular research method for investigating cognitive and motivational processes such as decision-making, action-planning, and executive functions. In the present paper, we evaluate and discuss how apparently trivial design choices of researchers may impact participants' behavior and, consequently, a study's results. We first provide a thorough comparison of mouse- and finger-tracking setups on the basis of a Simon task. We then vary a comprehensive set of design factors, including spatial layout, movement extent, time of stimulus onset, size of the target areas, and hit detection in a finger-tracking variant of this task. We explore the impact of these variations on a broad spectrum of movement parameters that are typically used to describe movement trajectories. Based on our findings, we suggest several recommendations for best practice that avoid some of the pitfalls of the methodology. Keeping these recommendations in mind will allow for informed decisions when planning and conducting future tracking experiments.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KirschUllrichKunde2016,
  author    = {Kirsch, Wladimir and Ullrich, Benjamin and Kunde, Wilfried},
  title     = {Are Effects of Action on Perception Real? Evidence from Transformed Movements},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {12},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0167993},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-178574},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {It has been argued that several reported non-visual influences on perception cannot be truly perceptual. If they were, they should affect the perception of target objects and reference objects used to express perceptual judgments, and thus cancel each other out. This reasoning presumes that non-visual manipulations impact target objects and comparison objects equally. In the present study we show that equalizing a body-related manipulation between target objects and reference objects essentially abolishes the impact of that manipulation so as it should do when that manipulation actually altered perception. Moreover, the manipulation has an impact on judgements when applied to only the target object but not to the reference object, and that impact reverses when only applied to the reference object but not to the target object. A perceptual explanation predicts this reversal, whereas explanations in terms of post-perceptual response biases or demand effects do not. Altogether these results suggest that body-related influences on perception cannot as a whole be attributed to extra-perceptual factors.},
  language  = {en}
}