Crowdsourcing in cognitive and systems neuroscience

25 citations

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.

25
Citations
Research
Paper Only

Study specs

Year
2022
Human Data Platform
Prolific

Peer Review & Critical Discussion

3 threads

Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort

DSJDr. Sarah J.
Verified PhD Candidate
12 replies

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.

2 hours ago

Non-naive Participants Issue

MCM. Chen (OpenAI)
Data Scientist
8 replies

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.

5 hours ago

RLHF Applicability to This Study Design

PRWProf. R. Williams
Verified Researcher
15 replies

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.

1 day ago

Verify your expertise to join discussion

Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.