title: Visual attention and the neuroimage bias.
abstract: Several highly-cited experiments have presented evidence suggesting that neuroimages may unduly bias laypeople's judgments of scientific research. This finding has been especially worrisome to the legal community in which neuroimage techniques may be used to produce evidence of a person's mental state. However, a more recent body of work that has looked directly at the independent impact of neuroimages on layperson decision-making (both in legal and more general arenas), and has failed to find evidence of bias. To help resolve these conflicting findings, this research uses eye tracking technology to provide a measure of attention to different visual representations of neuroscientific data. Finding an effect of neuroimages on the distribution of attention would provide a potential mechanism for the influence of neuroimages on higher-level decisions. In the present experiment, a sample of laypeople viewed a vignette that briefly described a court case in which the defendant's actions might have been explained by a neurological defect. Accompanying these vignettes was either an MRI image of the defendant's brain, or a bar graph depicting levels of brain activity-two competing visualizations that have been the focus of much of the previous research on the neuroimage bias. We found that, while laypeople differentially attended to neuroimagery relative to the bar graph, this did not translate into differential judgments in a way that would support the idea of a neuroimage bias.
authors.affiliation: School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
authors.forename: D A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Baker
authors.forename: N J
authors.initials: NJ
authors.lastname: Schweitzer
authors.forename: Evan F
authors.initials: EF
authors.lastname: Risko
authors.forename: Jillian M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Ware
mesh_terms: D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology*; D015982:Bias; D001921:Brain / Q000473:pathology; D003415:Crime; D003657:Decision Making; D005133:Eye Movements / Q000502:physiology; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D008297:Male; D059906:Neuroimaging / Q000523:psychology*; D011678:Punishment / Q000523:psychology*; D014796:Visual Perception; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Cognition. 2013 Dec;129(3):501-11
references.pmid: 24041836
references.citation: Behav Sci Law. 2012 May-Jun;30(3):280-96
references.pmid: 22213023
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2007 Mar;18(3):233-9
references.pmid: 17444920
references.citation: Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 Jan;8(1):88-90
references.pmid: 26172255
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Oct;64(10):1971-89
references.pmid: 21838656
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Mar;10(1):96-103
references.pmid: 12747495
references.citation: Stanford Law Rev. 2010 Apr;62(4):1119-208
references.pmid: 20429137
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1996 Jun;125(2):159-80
references.pmid: 8683192
references.citation: Behav Sci Law. 2009 Mar-Apr;27(2):261-72
references.pmid: 19319837
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Aug;20(4):720-5
references.pmid: 23400855
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Apr;107(1):343-52
references.pmid: 17803985
references.citation: Behav Sci Law. 2008;26(1):85-97
references.pmid: 18327829
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2008 Mar;20(3):470-7
references.pmid: 18004955
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1958 Mar;55(3):289-96
references.pmid: 13513951
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1998 Nov;124(3):372-422
references.pmid: 9849112
references.citation: Behav Sci Law. 2011 Jul-Aug;29(4):566-77
references.pmid: 21751243
references.citation: Behav Sci Law. 2011 Jul-Aug;29(4):592-607
references.pmid: 21744379
references.citation: Public Underst Sci. 2012 Nov;21(8):938-48
references.pmid: 23832746