Mini-games
backed by science.
Our mini-games are derived from a set of neuroscience-based tests, peer-reviewed and validated by the international scientific community over the years. This guarantees that the experience based on mini-games is, in reality, an assessment process founded on scientific principles.
Bland, A. R., Roiser, J. P., Mehta, M. A., Schei, T. S., Boland, H., Campbell-Meiklejohn, D., et al. EMOTICOM: a neuropsychological test battery to evaluate emotional, motivational and social cognition. Front. Behav. Neurosci 2016; 10:25.
Amy R. Bland, Jonathan P. Roiser, Mitul A. Mehta, Thea Schei, Barbara J. Sahakian, Trevor W. Robbins, Rebecca Elliott. Cooperative Behavior in the Ultimatum Game and Prisoner’s Dilemma Depends on Players’ Contributions. Front. Psychol. 2017.
Blanco, M., Engelmann, D., and Normann, H. T. (2011). A within-subject analysis of other-regarding preferences. Games Econ. Behav. 72, 321–338.
Weinstock J, Whelan JP, Meyers AW. Behavioral assessment of gambling: An application of the timeline followback method. Psychological Assessment. 2004;16:72–80.
Denis O’Hora, Rachel Carey, Aoife Kervick, David Crowley, Maciej Dabrowski. Decisions in Motion: Decision Dynamics during Intertemporal Choice reflect Subjective Evaluation of Delayed Rewards. Nature (Scientific Reports). 2016; Article number: 20740.
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G. & O’Donoghue, T. Time discounting and time preference : A critical review. J. Econ. Lit. XL 2002; 351–401.
Odum, A. L. Delay discounting: I’m a k, you’re a k. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 96, 427–39 (2011).
Lejuez CW, Read JP, Kahler CW, Richards JB, Ramsey SE, Stuart GL, et al. Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2002;8:75–84.
Tara L. White, Carl W. Lejuez, Harriet de Wit. Test-Retest Characteristics of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2008; vol. 1, No. 6, 565-570.
Meertens RM, Lion R. Measuring an individual’s tendency to take risks: The risk propensity scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2008;38:1506–1520.
Anaïs Gibert, Wade C. Tozer, Mark Westoby. Teamwork, Soft Skills, and Research Training. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2016.
Wuchty S.et al. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. 2007; 316: 1036-1039
Kaller, C. P., Rahm, B., Spreer, J., Mader, I., & Unterrainer, J. M. Thinking around the corner: The development of planning abilities. Brain and Cognition 2008; 67(3):360-70.
Daniel B. Wright, Elin M. Skagerberg. Measuring Empathizing and Systemizing with a Large US Sample. 2012; PLoS ONE 7(2): e31661.
Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S. The Empathy Quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. J Autism Dec Disord. 2004; 34: 163–175.
Allison C, Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright SJ, Stone MH, Muncer SJ. Psychometric analysis of the Empathy Quotient (EQ). Pers Indiv Differ 2011; 51: 829–835.
Reynolds B, Ortengren A, Richards J, de Wit H. Dimensions of impulsive behavior: Personality and behavioral measures. Personality and Individual Differences. 2006b;40(2):305–15.
Sakong J, Kang PS, Kim CY, Hwang TY, Jeon MJ, Park SY, et al. Evaluation of reliability of traditional and computerized neurobehavioral tests. Neurotoxicology. 2007;28:235–9.
Robinson, John P; Shaver, Phillip R and Wrightsman, Lawrence S. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. Eds. 1991.
Rinn, William E. (1984). The Neuropsychology of Facial Expression: A Review of the Neurological and Psychological Mechanisms for Producing Facial Expressions. Psychological Bulletin. American Psychological Association, Inc. 95 (1): 52–77.
Validation is good.
Cross-validation is better.
Every single trait that we measure gets tested multiple times and in different ways throughout the whole interaction with the HEROBOTICS app. This means that the final measurements are obtained by repeatedly cross-validating every single trait in order to obtain the highest reliability of the results.
No right or wrong answer.
All the interactions within the HEROBOTICS app are legitimate and distinctive of more or less accentuated characteristics for each individual trait. However, our traits are non-directional, meaning that we do not measure how good or bad someone is, but rather we observe how the games get solved, and therefore, how the different traits are distributed within a profile making it unique.