4.5 Article

The human task-evoked pupillary response function is linear: Implications for baseline response scaling in pupillometry

期刊

BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS
卷 51, 期 2, 页码 865-878

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-018-1134-4

关键词

Pupillometry; Executive functioning; Arousal; Cognitive load; Psychophysics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The human task-evoked pupillary response provides a sensitive physiological index of the intensity and online resource demands of numerous cognitive processes (e.g., memory retrieval, problem solving, or target detection). Cognitive pupillometry is a well-established technique that relies upon precise measurement of these subtle response functions. Baseline variability of pupil diameter is a complex artifact that typically necessitates mathematical correction. A methodological paradox within pupillometry is that linear and nonlinear forms of baseline scaling both remain accepted baseline correction techniques, despite yielding highly disparate results. The task-evoked pupillary response (TEPR) could potentially scale nonlinearly, similar to autonomic functions such as heart rate, in which the amplitude of an evoked response diminishes as the baseline rises. Alternatively, the TEPR could scale similarly to the cortical hemodynamic response, as a linear function that is independent of its baseline. However, the TEPR cannot scale both linearly and nonlinearly. Our aim was to adjudicate between linear and nonlinear scaling of human TEPR. We manipulated baseline pupil size by modulating the illuminance in the testing room as participants heard abrupt pure-tone transitions (Exp. 1) or visually monitored word lists (Exp. 2). Phasic pupillary responses scaled according to a linear function across all lighting (dark, mid, bright) and task (tones, words) conditions, demonstrating that the TEPR is independent of its baseline amplitude. We discuss methodological implications and identify a need to reevaluate past pupillometry studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据