Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Beyond utility: incorporating eye-tracking, skin conductance and heart rate data into cognitive and econometric travel behaviour models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Physiological sensors improve cognitive choice models more than logit

desk verdict A credible first pass at wiring eye-tracking and stress data into DFT's process parameters; the empirical gains are real but in-sample, and the gaze endogeneity means the causal attention story still needs a cleaner test. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18068 v1 pith:NALPE43D submitted 2025-06-22 econ.EM

Thomas O. Hancock , Stephane Hess , Charisma F. Choudhury This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.EM
keywords choicemodellingdecisionfieldtheoryeye-trackingphysiologicaldatastressgapacceptancestatedpreferenceprocessparameters
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that physiological sensor data—eye fixations, heart rate, and skin conductance—can be meaningfully wired into the process parameters of decision field theory (DFT), a psychological model of how preferences accumulate over time. In a static stated-preference experiment on accommodation choice, adding eye-tracking data improved both standard logit and DFT models, with the best DFT specifications placing gaze information on attribute scaling parameters. In a dynamic driving-simulator gap-acceptance task, linking stress indicators to DFT's process noise gave a significantly better fit than adding them to initial preference, and linking gaze patterns to the attention weight on gap size outperformed simpler insertions in either framework. The paper argues that cognitive models with explicit process parameters are a more natural home for process data than utility-only econometric models, and that the gains are context-dependent.

What carries the argument

The central object is decision field theory (DFT) as implemented in the framework this paper builds on: a dynamic, stochastic accumulation model in which preference for each alternative evolves through a feedback matrix and a random valence vector driven by attribute attention. Its process parameters—attribute attention weights $w_k$, attribute scaling factors $\beta$, sensitivity $\phi_1$, memory $\phi_2$, process noise $\sigma_\varepsilon$, and the number of preference-updating steps $\tau$—are the slots into which physiological data are plugged. Eye-tracking enters either by adjusting the logit-transformed attention weights or by adjusting the scaling parameters, with an $\alpha$ coefficient estimating the strength of the gaze link; stress enters either through the initial preference bias or by reparameterising process noise as $\sigma_\varepsilon = \exp(\alpha_{\mathrm{stress}})$. The machinery works because DFT separates 'how often an attribute is considered' from 'how much it matters,' so gaze can inform the former and stress can inform the latter.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be out-of-sample prediction: estimate the models on one half of the choice tasks and compare predictive accuracy on the other half. If the DFT-with-process-data gains shrink or vanish relative to the logit models, the in-sample improvements come from gaze and stress tracing the choice rather than from a structural process link. A second test would manipulate gaze exogenously, for example by cueing attention, and see whether the alpha-driven probability shifts follow the manipulation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that physiological measurements can be tied to the mechanisms of decision field theory rather than merely tacked onto a utility function, and that this yields measurable improvements in fit and interpretable behavioural parameters. In the static accommodation-choice task, the best model moved the eye-tracking effect onto the attribute scaling parameters, improving log-likelihood by 93 units over the base DFT model; in the dynamic gap-acceptance task, the best model moved gaze information onto the attention weight for gap size, and the stress data onto process noise. Significant positive alpha coefficients meant that more time looking at an attribute increased its influence, while higher measured stress increased choice unpredictability. The paper interprets this as evidence that process data can separate attention from preference within DFT, something choice data alone cannot do.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that gaze fixations and physiological stress readings can be treated as noisy but exogenous observations of the deliberation process, entered directly into attention weights or utility functions; if gaze is instead a consequence of a preference that has already formed, the model's alpha coefficients would be measuring gaze predicting choice, not attention shaping it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DFT models with eye-tracking can separately estimate attention and attribute importance, a decomposition that choice data alone cannot identify.
  • Stress-linked process noise implies stressed decision-makers do not simply shift their bias; they become less predictable, which is testable through response-time or steering variability.
  • The context-dependence of the best entry point—scaling parameters in the static task, attention weights in the dynamic task—means no single integration rule will work; applications must tailor where gaze enters.
  • If validated out of sample, the approach gives real-time driver-state prediction a structural home: gaze and heart-rate streams could feed DFT parameters for gap acceptance or lane-change models.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because gaze is known to drift toward the eventual favourite, the large in-sample fits may partly be gaze predicting choice; a decisive out-of-sample or penultimate-fixation test would separate the structural attention effect from this reverse-causal path.
  • The same parameter-plugging strategy should transfer to other sequential sampling models, such as the attentional drift-diffusion or leaky competing accumulator, with gaze entering drift or boundary parameters; the static-versus-dynamic contrast suggests the best entry point will differ by model.
  • If stress genuinely inflates process noise, DFT predicts that choice consistency and response-time stability should co-vary across individuals; matching model-predicted preference trajectories to continuous simulator data would be a strong external check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for incorporating physiological process data (eye-tracking, heart rate, and skin conductance responses) into decision field theory (DFT) models of travel behaviour, and compares these against multinomial logit (MNL) benchmarks. Two empirical settings are studied: a static stated-preference accommodation choice task with eye-tracking, and a dynamic gap-acceptance task in a driving simulator with heart rate, skin conductance, and gaze measures. The authors estimate DFT variants in which gaze or stress indicators enter attention weights, attribute scaling parameters, initial preferences, or process noise, and they evaluate models using in-sample log-likelihood, BIC, and likelihood-ratio tests. The headline claim is that physiological data linked to DFT process parameters yields larger improvements in fit than adding the same data to utility functions in econometric models, with the static results showing larger DFT improvements for eye-tracking and the dynamic results showing that stress-linked process noise and gaze-linked attention weights improve DFT fit.

Significance. If the central claim held, this would be a valuable step toward using physiological sensor data to estimate cognitive process parameters in applied travel behaviour models, bridging two literatures that rarely meet. The paper is transparent in reporting model specifications, parameter tables, and likelihood-ratio test statistics across a large number of model variants, and it uses two genuinely different choice contexts. The authors also deserve credit for acknowledging in Section 5.5 that their process data are incorporated only in aggregated, static form. However, the load-bearing behavioural interpretation of the gaze coefficients is threatened by the endogeneity of gaze with respect to an emerging choice, and the headline comparison in the dynamic case is not fully supported by the reported fit statistics. The paper's contribution is therefore conditional on additional robustness analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (7); Section 4.3.1, Eq. (13); Section 5.4.1, Eqs. (20)-(22)] The eye-tracking covariates are aggregated over the entire deliberation in the static task and over the 5 seconds before each gap in the dynamic task, and are entered directly into attention weights or scaling parameters. The paper itself acknowledges in Section 3.2 that a decision-maker may have 'already made their decision' while looking, but no specification or robustness test addresses the resulting reverse causality. Late fixations are partly a consequence of the preference that is forming, so the 86-93 log-likelihood gains in Tables 2-3 and the significant gaze coefficients in Table 6 may be mechanical: gaze predicting an already-formed choice rather than attention shaping it. A test based only on first-half-of-deliberation fixations, or on fixations before some fixed threshold, would be needed to support the claim that gaze measures attention that shapes choice.
  2. [Tables 1-6] All model comparisons are in-sample. BIC and likelihood-ratio tests are computed on the same data used to motivate the specifications, and the gaze measures are high-dimensional aggregated summaries of the choice process. Neither BIC nor likelihood-ratio tests protect against overfitting when the process data are endogenous to the choice being modelled. Without holdout validation by task, individual, or scenario, the claims that physiological data add 'substantial' value and that DFT gives 'larger improvements' are overstated. I ask the authors to add out-of-sample or cross-validated log-likelihood comparisons, at least for the main competing models in Tables 5 and 6.
  3. [Abstract and Table 6] The abstract states that in the dynamic scenarios, linking stress and eye-tracking data to DFT process parameters results in 'larger improvements in comparison to simpler methods for incorporating this data in either DFT or econometric models.' The reported numbers do not support this for eye-tracking: MNL-E improves by 10.31 log-likelihood units over MNL-S (p=0.00013), whereas DFT-E3 improves by 6.08 over DFT-S2 (p=0.00686). Only for the stress data is the DFT improvement (10.34 for DFT-S2 over DFT-B) larger than the MNL improvement (2.98 for MNL-S over MNL-B). The comparative claim in the abstract and conclusions should be revised, or a more appropriate comparison should be provided that accounts for the different base models and parameter counts.
  4. [Section 4.3.2, Table 3] In DFT-E5, the gaze coefficient alpha_gazecount is estimated as 14.55 with a robust t-ratio of 1.65, i.e., not significant at conventional levels, yet the model is reported to improve by 93.08 log-likelihood units over the base model. This combination of a statistically insignificant gaze parameter with a very large fit gain is suspicious. It suggests that the fit improvement may be driven by changes in other parameters, notably sigma_epsilon = 125.56, rather than by the intended attention mechanism. The behavioural interpretation of alpha as the 'relative importance of gaze' is therefore not cleanly identified in this specification. Please report a profile likelihood over alpha or a comparison in which alpha is fixed at zero to clarify the source of the gain.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4 heading] The word 'accomodation' should be spelled 'accommodation' in the section heading.
  2. [Table 6] The base model for MNL-E is labelled 'MNL-B' in the table header, but the 'Improvement over MNL-S/DFT-S2' row indicates that the comparison is against MNL-S. This is inconsistent and should be corrected.
  3. [Section 4.3.2, footnote 3] The footnote says 'to avoid overcomplicating Table 12', but no Table 12 exists; the reference should be to the table or appendix actually used.
  4. [Eq. (7)] Equation (7) gives a generic function for the attention weight but no explicit functional form. Since the empirical work uses specific linear-in-gaze forms (e.g., Eq. (13) and Eq. (22)), please state the functional form used in estimation.
  5. [Section 5.2.1, Eq. (17)] The parameter delta_bias is described as a bias that 'increases over the course of deliberating', but in the specification it enters the scaling vector for the constant 'alternative factors' attribute and is therefore active at every updating step. Please clarify how this implements a time-increasing bias.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are empirical model comparisons on external data, not consequences of construction or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical comparisons of fitted statistical models on external datasets: adding eye-tracking and stress measures to MNL and DFT models improves in-sample fit, with the DFT variants showing larger gains. These claims are not circular because the physiological variables enter as exogenous regressors or moderators of estimated parameters (e.g., Eq. 13 for attention weights, Eq. 19 for process noise, Eq. 22 for gap-size attention weights); no parameter is fitted to the choice outcome and then relabeled as a prediction. The gaze-endogeneity concern raised in Section 3.2 is a real identification and interpretation issue, but it is not a circularity: the model does not define gaze as a consequence of choice, and the in-sample fit gains could in principle be spurious without any reduction of the derivation to its inputs. The DFT framework is imported from prior work by overlapping authors (Hancock et al. 2018, 2021), but those cited works were developed and tested outside the present datasets, and their assumptions do not include the current paper's result; no uniqueness theorem is invoked to forbid competing specifications. The paper also openly acknowledges the static aggregation of process data and the possibility that decision-makers may have already decided while fixating, which is a limitation rather than a circular construction. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the empirical comparisons, and the self-citations are not load-bearing in a way that forces the conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No code or data are shipped; the central results rest on maximum-likelihood fits of many parameters. The key unobserved constructs are attention weights and process noise, neither of which is directly measured; gaze and stress are assumed to index them. The DFT machinery is taken from the authors' prior work, so the reader must accept that framework's identification assumptions.

free parameters (12)
  • alpha_gazecount (static) = 1.59 to 14.55 across models
    Maps fixation-count share into attention weights or scaling; drives the static fit improvement.
  • alpha_gazetime (static) = 1.92 in DFT-E2; insignificant in DFT-E3
    Maps viewing-time share; largely collinear with count share.
  • alpha_gazeleft (dynamic) = 61.05 in DFT-E3; -10.76 in MNL-E
    Maps left-looking share into attention weight for gap size; sign flips between model classes.
  • alpha_gazeyaw_sd (dynamic) = -1.41 in DFT-E3
    Gaze dispersion (yaw) decreases the attention weight for gap size.
  • alpha_gazepitch_sd (dynamic) = -2.44 in DFT-E3
    Gaze dispersion (pitch) decreases the attention weight for gap size.
  • alpha_hr (dynamic) = 0.91 in DFT-S2
    Normalised heart rate increases decision process noise.
  • alpha_scr (dynamic) = 4.49 in DFT-S2
    Skin conductance response increases decision process noise.
  • delta_stress (dynamic) = 0.55 in DFT-S2
    Time-pressure scenario increases the stress index.
  • tau (dynamic DFT) = 15.87 (DFT-B) to 20.28 (DFT-E1)
    Number of preference updating steps; estimated, with large influence on choice probabilities.
  • sigma_e (static DFT) = 38.39 (DFT-B2) to 32.03 (DFT-E3)
    Process noise variance in static DFT; fitted and large.
  • phi1 (static DFT) = 1.19e-4 to 1.28e-4
    Sensitivity parameter in feedback matrix; estimated.
  • attention weight constants gamma (static DFT-B1) = 0 fixed; 0.88, 0.37, 0.30
    Baseline attention weights in DFT models with estimated weights.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Choice probabilities in DFT are computed from the multivariate normal approximation of the preference vector (Eq. 6).
    Imported from Hancock et al. (2021); the approximation is not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Gaze fixations correspond to attention to attributes (Eq. 7 and Eq. 13).
    The central behavioural interpretation depends on treating relative fixation time as attention, without modelling reverse causality.
  • domain assumption Stress indicators (HR, SCR, scenario) are exogenous to the choice and uncontaminated by the decision process.
    Used in Eq. 18 to form a stress index; if stress is endogenous to the choice, the significance tests are biased.
  • ad hoc to paper The two alternatives in gap-acceptance are represented by a 2x3 attribute matrix with equal attention weights except when modified by gaze (Eq. 16-17).
    A specific modelling choice for the dynamic case that constrains the DFT representation.
  • domain assumption Participants who failed catch trials can be removed, and remaining responses are independent across tasks.
    The accommodation analysis is based on 1430 responses after excluding 6 participants; no clustering or repeated-measures correction is described.
  • ad hoc to paper The DFT feedback matrix structure (Eq. 2) and the fixing of phi2 and tau to avoid boundary issues do not bias the comparison.
    Static DFT fixes phi2 at its upper bound and tau at 1000 after initial testing, which may hide non-identification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond utility: incorporating eye-tracking, skin conductance and heart rate data into cognitive and econometric travel behaviour models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NALPE43D

@misc{pith2026250618068,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond utility: incorporating eye-tracking, skin conductance and heart rate data into cognitive and econometric travel behaviour models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NALPE43D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18068}
}
read the original abstract

Choice models for large-scale applications have historically relied on economic theories (e.g. utility maximisation) that establish relationships between the choices of individuals, their characteristics, and the attributes of the alternatives. In a parallel stream, choice models in cognitive psychology have focused on modelling the decision-making process, but typically in controlled scenarios. Recent research developments have attempted to bridge the modelling paradigms, with choice models that are based on psychological foundations, such as decision field theory (DFT), outperforming traditional econometric choice models for travel mode and route choice behaviour. The use of physiological data, which can provide indications about the choice-making process and mental states, opens up the opportunity to further advance the models. In particular, the use of such data to enrich 'process' parameters within a cognitive theory-driven choice model has not yet been explored. This research gap is addressed by incorporating physiological data into both econometric and DFT models for understanding decision-making in two different contexts: stated-preference responses (static) of accomodation choice and gap-acceptance decisions within a driving simulator experiment (dynamic). Results from models for the static scenarios demonstrate that both models can improve substantially through the incorporation of eye-tracking information. Results from models for the dynamic scenarios suggest that stress measurement and eye-tracking data can be linked with process parameters in DFT, resulting in larger improvements in comparison to simpler methods for incorporating this data in either DFT or econometric models. The findings provide insights into the value added by physiological data as well as the performance of different candidate modelling frameworks for integrating such data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Duarte, R

    Arcoverde Neto, E. N., Duarte, R. M., Barreto, R. M., Magalh \ a es, J. P., Bastos, C., Ren, T. I., and Cavalcanti, G. D. (2014). Enhanced real-time head pose estimation system for mobile device. Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering , 21(3):281--293

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Bansal, P., Kim, E.-J., and Ozdemir, S. (2024). Discrete choice experiments with eye-tracking: How far we have come and ways forward. Journal of choice modelling , 51:100478

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    A., Jimenez-Molina, A., and Seriani, S

    Barr \' a, C., Guevara, C. A., Jimenez-Molina, A., and Seriani, S. (2023). Relating emotions, psychophysiological indicators and context in public transport trips: Case study and a joint framework for data collection and analysis. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour , 95:418--431

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    S., et al

    Ben-Akiva, M., McFadden, D., Train, K., Walker, J., Bhat, C., Bierlaire, M., Bolduc, D., Boersch-Supan, A., Brownstone, D., Bunch, D. S., et al. (2002). Hybrid choice models: progress and challenges. Marketing Letters , 13(3):163--175

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    and Kaernbach, C

    Benedek, M. and Kaernbach, C. (2010). A continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity. Journal of neuroscience methods , 190(1):80--91

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    A., Scheibehenne, B., and Rieskamp, J

    Berkowitsch, N. A., Scheibehenne, B., and Rieskamp, J. (2014). Rigorously testing multialternative decision field theory against random utility models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 143(3):1331

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Bogacz, M., Hess, S., Choudhury, C., Calastri, C., Erath, A., Van Eggermond, M., Mushtaq, F., and Awais, M. (2019). Modelling risk perception using a dynamic hybrid choice model and brain-imaging data: application to virtual reality cycling. In International Choice Modelling Conference 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Brown, S. D. and Heathcote, A. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology , 57(3):153--178

    work page 2008

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    R., Gluth, S., Rieskamp, J., and Turner, B

    Busemeyer, J. R., Gluth, S., Rieskamp, J., and Turner, B. M. (2019). Cognitive and neural bases of multi-attribute, multi-alternative, value-based decisions. Trends in cognitive sciences , 23(3):251--263

    2019

  2. [10]

    Busemeyer, J. R. and Rieskamp, J. (2014). Psychological research and theories on preferential choice. In Handbook of choice modelling . Edward Elgar Publishing

    2014

  3. [11]

    Busemeyer, J. R. and Townsend, J. T. (1992). Fundamental derivations from decision field theory. Mathematical Social Sciences , 23(3):255--282

    1992

  4. [12]

    Busemeyer, J. R. and Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review , 100(3):432

    1993

  5. [13]

    L., Kang, N., and Leise, T

    Cohen, A. L., Kang, N., and Leise, T. L. (2017). Multi-attribute, multi-alternative models of choice: Choice, reaction time, and process tracing. Cognitive Psychology , 98:45--72

    2017

  6. [14]

    Diederich, A. (1997). Dynamic stochastic models for decision making under time constraints. Journal of Mathematical Psychology , 41(3):260--274

    1997

  7. [15]

    Fisher, G. (2017). An attentional drift diffusion model over binary-attribute choice. Cognition , 168:34--45

    2017

  8. [16]

    Foss, R. D. and Goodwin, A. H. (2014). Distracted driver behaviors and distracting conditions among adolescent drivers: Findings from a naturalistic driving study. Journal of Adolescent Health , 54(5):S50--S60

    2014

  9. [17]

    and Gaissmaier, W

    Gigerenzer, G. and Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual review of psychology , 62:451--482

    2011

  10. [18]

    Gl \"o ckner, A., Fiedler, S., Hochman, G., Ayal, S., and Hilbig, B. (2012). Processing differences between descriptions and experience: A comparative analysis using eye-tracking and physiological measures. Frontiers in psychology , 3:173

    2012

  11. [19]

    Gon c alves, R., Louw, T., Madigan, R., and Merat, N. (2019). Using markov chains to understand the sequence of drivers' gaze transitions during lane-changes in automated driving. In Proceedings of the... international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, t...

    2019

  12. [20]

    and Ortuzar, J

    Gonz \'a lez-Vald \'e s, F. and Ortuzar, J. de . D. (2018). The stochastic satisficing model: A bounded rationality discrete choice model. Journal of choice modelling , 27:74--87

    2018

  13. [21]

    Hancock, T. O. and Choudhury, C. F. (2023). Utilising physiological data for augmenting travel choice models: methodological frameworks and directions of future research. Transport reviews , 43(5):838--866

    2023

  14. [22]

    O., Hess, S., and Choudhury, C

    Hancock, T. O., Hess, S., and Choudhury, C. F. (2018). Decision field theory: Improvements to current methodology and comparisons with standard choice modelling techniques. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological , 107:18--40

    2018

  15. [23]

    O., Hess, S., Marley, A., and Choudhury, C

    Hancock, T. O., Hess, S., Marley, A., and Choudhury, C. F. (2021). An accumulation of preference: Two alternative dynamic models for understanding transport choices. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological , 149:250--282

    2021

  16. [24]

    and Guevara, C

    Henriquez-Jara, B. and Guevara, C. A. (2025). An experience-based choice model (ebcm): Formulation, identification, behavioural insights and well-being assessment. Journal of Choice Modelling , 55:100552

    2025

  17. [25]

    A., and Jimenez-Molina, A

    Henriquez-Jara, B., Guevara, C. A., and Jimenez-Molina, A. (2025). Identifying instant utility using psychophysiological indicators in a transport experiment with ecological validity. Transportation , pages 1--25

    2025

  18. [26]

    O., Solernou, A., Garc \' a, J., Guevara, A., and Choudhury, C

    Henr \' quez-Jara, B., Hancock, T. O., Solernou, A., Garc \' a, J., Guevara, A., and Choudhury, C. F. (2025). Modelling the effect of travel experiences in modal choice using virtual reality and physiological sensor data. Transporation Research Part C (forthcoming)

    2025

  19. [27]

    and Stathopoulos, A

    Hess, S. and Stathopoulos, A. (2013). Linking response quality to survey engagement: a combined random scale and latent variable approach. Journal of Choice Modelling , 7:1--12

    2013

  20. [28]

    H., Wood, S., Berger, D

    Huang, Y. H., Wood, S., Berger, D. E., and Hanoch, Y. (2015). Age differences in experiential and deliberative processes in unambiguous and ambiguous decision making. Psychology and aging , 30(3):675

    2015

  21. [29]

    S., and Perez, M

    Hurts, K., Angell, L. S., and Perez, M. A. (2011). The distracted driver: Mechanisms, models, and measurement. Reviews of human factors and ergonomics , 7(1):3--57

    2011

  22. [30]

    Krajbich, I., Lu, D., Camerer, C., and Rangel, A. (2012). The attentional drift-diffusion model extends to simple purchasing decisions. Frontiers in psychology , 3:193

    2012

  23. [31]

    Krucien, N., Ryan, M., and Hermens, F. (2017). Visual attention in multi-attributes choices: What can eye-tracking tell us? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 135:251--267

    2017

  24. [32]

    Li, P., Markkula, G., Li, Y., and Merat, N. (2018a). Is improved lane keeping during cognitive load caused by increased physical arousal or gaze concentration toward the road center? Accident Analysis & Prevention , 117:65--74

    2018

  25. [33]

    Li, P., Merat, N., Zheng, Z., Markkula, G., Li, Y., and Wang, Y. (2018b). Does cognitive distraction improve or degrade lane keeping performance? analysis of time-to-line crossing safety margins. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour , 57:48--58

    2018

  26. [34]

    M., Lerner, J

    Litvak, P. M., Lerner, J. S., Tiedens, L. Z., and Shonk, K. (2010). Fuel in the fire: How anger impacts judgment and decision-making. In International handbook of anger , pages 287--310. Springer

    2010

  27. [35]

    and Merat, N

    Louw, T. and Merat, N. (2017). Are you in the loop? using gaze dispersion to understand driver visual attention during vehicle automation. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies , 76:35--50

    2017

  28. [36]

    J., Hockey, G

    Maule, A. J., Hockey, G. R. J., and Bdzola, L. (2000). Effects of time-pressure on decision-making under uncertainty: changes in affective state and information processing strategy. Acta psychologica , 104(3):283--301

    2000

  29. [37]

    McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour. In Frontiers in Econometrics, ed. P. Zarembka ( N ew Y ork: Academic press)

    1974

  30. [38]

    and Stewart, N

    Noguchi, T. and Stewart, N. (2018). Multialternative decision by sampling: A model of decision making constrained by process data. Psychological review , 125(4):512

    2018

  31. [39]

    Nova, G., Guevara, A., Hess, S., and Hancock, T. O. (2025). Random utility maximisation model considering the information search process. Transportation Research Part B (forthcoming)

    2025

  32. [40]

    D., Vandekerckhove, J., and Srinivasan, R

    Nunez, M. D., Vandekerckhove, J., and Srinivasan, R. (2017). How attention influences perceptual decision making: Single-trial eeg correlates of drift-diffusion model parameters. Journal of mathematical psychology , 76:117--130

    2017

  33. [41]

    Paschalidis, E. (2019). Developing driving behaviour models incorporating the effects of stress . PhD thesis, University of Leeds

    2019

  34. [42]

    F., and Hess, S

    Paschalidis, E., Choudhury, C. F., and Hess, S. (2018). Modelling the effects of stress on gap-acceptance decisions combining data from driving simulator and physiological sensors. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour , 59:418--435

    2018

  35. [43]

    F., and Hess, S

    Paschalidis, E., Choudhury, C. F., and Hess, S. (2019). Combining driving simulator and physiological sensor data in a latent variable model to incorporate the effect of stress in car-following behaviour. Analytic methods in accident research , 22:100089

    2019

  36. [44]

    a stfj \

    Peters, E., Hess, T. M., V \"a stfj \"a ll, D., and Auman, C. (2007). Adult age differences in dual information processes: Implications for the role of affective and deliberative processes in older adults' decision making. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 2(1):1--23

    2007

  37. [45]

    Pettibone, J. C. (2012). Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice. Judgment and Decision making , 7(4):513

    2012

  38. [46]

    F., and De Winter, J

    Rendon-Velez, E., Van Leeuwen, P., Happee, R., Horv \'a th, I., van der Vegte, W. F., and De Winter, J. (2016). The effects of time pressure on driver performance and physiological activity: a driving simulator study. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and beha...

    2016

  39. [47]

    M., Busemeyer, J

    Roe, R. M., Busemeyer, J. R., and Townsend, J. T. (2001). Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychological Review , 108(2):370

    2001

  40. [48]

    Salvia, E., Petit, C., Champely, S., Chomette, R., Di Rienzo, F., and Collet, C. (2016). Effects of age and task load on drivers’ response accuracy and reaction time when responding to traffic lights. Frontiers in aging neuroscience , 8:169

    2016

  41. [49]

    Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., and Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of personality and social psychology , 83(5):1178

    2002

  42. [50]

    W., Wedel, M., and Pieters, F

    Shi, S. W., Wedel, M., and Pieters, F. (2013). Information acquisition during online decision making: A model-based exploration using eye-tracking data. Management Science , 59(5):1009--1026

    2013

  43. [51]

    Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., and Scheier, C. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature neuroscience , 6(12):1317--1322

    2003

  44. [52]

    and Maule, A

    Svenson, O. and Maule, A. J. (1993). Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making . Springer Science & Business Media

    1993

  45. [53]

    Tavares, G., Perona, P., and Rangel, A. (2017). The attentional drift diffusion model of simple perceptual decision-making. Frontiers in neuroscience , 11:468

    2017

  46. [54]

    W., Molter, F., Krajbich, I., Heekeren, H

    Thomas, A. W., Molter, F., Krajbich, I., Heekeren, H. R., and Mohr, P. N. (2019). Gaze bias differences capture individual choice behaviour. Nature human behaviour , 3(6):625--635

    2019

  47. [55]

    H., and Olsen, S

    Uggeldahl, K., Jacobsen, C., Lundhede, T. H., and Olsen, S. B. (2016). Choice certainty in discrete choice experiments: Will eye tracking provide useful measures? Journal of choice modelling , 20:35--48

    2016

  48. [56]

    and McClelland, J

    Usher, M. and McClelland, J. L. (2004). Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. Psychological review , 111(3):757

    2004

  49. [57]

    J., Nayga Jr, R

    Van Loo, E. J., Nayga Jr, R. M., Campbell, D., Seo, H.-S., and Verbeke, W. (2018). Using eye tracking to account for attribute non-attendance in choice experiments. European Review of Agricultural Economics , 45(3):333--365

    2018

  50. [58]

    and Walker, J

    Vij, A. and Walker, J. L. (2016). How, when and why integrated choice and latent variable models are latently useful. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological , 90:192--217

    2016

  51. [59]

    Xu, J., Min, J., and Hu, J. (2018). Real-time eye tracking for the assessment of driver fatigue. Healthcare technology letters , 5(2):54--58

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.