Crowdsourcing in cognitive and systems neuroscience
Abstract
Behavioral research in cognitive and human systems neuroscience has been largely carried out in-person in laboratory settings. Underpowering and lack of reproducibility due to small sample sizes have weakened conclusions of these investigations. In other disciplines, such as neuroeconomics and social sciences, crowdsourcing has been extensively utilized as a data collection tool, and a means to increase sample sizes. Recent methodological advances allow scientists, for the first time, to test online more complex cognitive, perceptual, and motor tasks. Here we review the nascent literature on the use of online crowdsourcing in cognitive and human systems neuroscience. These investigations take advantage of the ability to reliably track the activity of a participant's computer keyboard, mouse, and eye gaze in the context of large-scale studies online that involve diverse research participant pools. Crowdsourcing allows for testing the generalizability of behavioral hypotheses in real-life environments that are less accessible to lab-designed investigations. Crowdsourcing is further useful when in-laboratory studies are limited, for example during the current COVID-19 pandemic. We also discuss current limitations of crowdsourcing research, and suggest pathways to address them. We conclude that online crowdsourcing is likely to widen the scope and strengthen conclusions of cognitive and human systems neuroscience investigations.
Study specs
- Authors
- BP Johnson,E Dayan,N Censor
- Discipline
- Neuroscience,Psychology
- Year
- 2022
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source DOI Google Scholar
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.