September 2024
Volume 24, Issue 10
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2024
Deconstructing the task-evoked pupillary response
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Sean R. O'Bryan
    Brown University
  • William Kemball-Cook
    Brown University
  • Joo-Hyun Song
    Brown University
  • Footnotes
    Acknowledgements  NSF BCS-1555006
Journal of Vision September 2024, Vol.24, 1428. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.24.10.1428
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Sean R. O'Bryan, William Kemball-Cook, Joo-Hyun Song; Deconstructing the task-evoked pupillary response. Journal of Vision 2024;24(10):1428. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.24.10.1428.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Task-evoked pupillary responses can provide a useful biomarker of dynamic internal cognitive states such as effort, attentional control, and surprise. These responses are typically quantified by subtracting pre-trial baseline pupil diameter (PD) from peak PD following a stimulus or motor response, corresponding to response amplitude. However, other physiological components such as baseline PD, dilation velocity, and peak latency all affect the shape of the canonical pupillary response, and moreover, each of these components can directly affect amplitude estimates. Here, we systematically tested the relationships between each of these measures by analyzing pupillometry data across three independent cognitive control experiments: a Stroop task (N = 87), a visual working memory task (N = 74), and a visuomotor adaptation task (N = 30). Furthermore, we examined how and whether each PD measure tracked cognitive load and individual differences in performance. Notably, subject- and trial-level correlation analyses revealed that measurements of amplitude were highly (negatively) correlated with baseline PD, and that the strength of these associations may lead to collinearity issues in studies seeking to separately test the contributions of PD amplitude and baseline to behavior. We also found that although amplitude and velocity measures were positively correlated, velocity explained less than 20% variance in amplitude at the trial level, such that velocity and amplitude measures are not interchangeable. Surprisingly, model comparison revealed that peak latency (i.e., time elapsed between stimulus onset and maximum PD) provided the best fit accounting for both task demands and individual differences in behavior across all three experiments: PD latency explained Stroop interference effects, accounted for load- and capacity-related differences in working memory, and tracked reach error under perturbed feedback conditions in visuomotor adaptation. Together, these results represent a critical step toward better understanding the capabilities (and limits) of pupillometry as a tool in the cognitive sciences.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×