Finally, we conducted a systematic model comparison to show that our data can not be accounted for with simpler explanations, implying that participants really accounted for how the friction impacts the puck's sliding behavior.

Find this and more in our pre-print:

www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...

We fitted the data with a generative model of sliding based on statistical decision theory, and participants even seem to account for their personal variability. Subjects with higher variability undershoot more:

Statistical decision theory predicts that if people maximize their task outcome but also account for how the friction impacts the puck, they should undershoot the target more the higher the penalty but also the larger the distance. This is also what we find in the data:

Participants controlled the puck's initial velocity, to hit the green area to receive a positive score but avoid a penalty from hitting the red area. This process is subject to signal dependent noise, which is further transformed by the physics of friction, determining the final puck position.

To study whether people can do this, we built this fun setup, where people get to slide a real standard hockey puck at targets, while viewing the scene through virtual reality. This offers a natural way of interacting with objects for the participants, but still allows for experimental control.

1. Sensorimotor-control, subject to inherent uncertainty and variability;
2. Intuitive physical reasoning as object manipulations are subject to physical dynamics;
3. Economic decision-making when actions have outcomes with monetary consequences.

Humans are exceptionally proficient at manipulating objects in natural tasks. This skill requires integrating three cognitive faculties:

Thanks, for your effort, I would really like to be added as well!

Great list! Could you please add me as well?