Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30249172›Full record

ReviewTrends in hearing

The Pupil Dilation Response to Auditory Stimuli: Current State of Knowledge.

Adriana A Zekveld, Thomas Koelewijn, Sophia E Kramer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 138 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
138citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

138 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Modality-general sensitivity of pupil responses to regularity violations.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Dissociable Pupil and Oculomotor Markers of Attention Allocation and Distractor Suppression during Listening.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

78 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Adriana A Zekveld1 Section Ear & Hearing, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1320-6908
Thomas Koelewijn1 Section Ear & Hearing, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, the Netherlands.
Sophia E Kramer1 Section Ear & Hearing, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The measurement of cognitive resource allocation during listening, or listening effort, provides valuable insight in the factors influencing auditory processing. In recent years, many studies inside and outside the field of hearing science have measured the pupil response evoked by auditory stimuli. The aim of the current review was to provide an exhaustive overview of these studies. The 146 studies included in this review originated from multiple domains, including hearing science and linguistics, but the review also covers research into motivation, memory, and emotion. The present review provides a unique overview of these studies and is organized according to the components of the Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening. A summary table presents the sample characteristics, an outline of the study design, stimuli, the pupil parameters analyzed, and the main findings of each study. The results indicate that the pupil response is sensitive to various task manipulations as well as interindividual differences. Many of the findings have been replicated. Frequent interactions between the independent factors affecting the pupil response have been reported, which indicates complex processes underlying cognitive resource allocation. This complexity should be taken into account in future studies that should focus more on interindividual differences, also including older participants. This review facilitates the careful design of new studies by indicating the factors that should be controlled for. In conclusion, measuring the pupil dilation response to auditory stimuli has been demonstrated to be sensitive method applicable to numerous research questions. The sensitivity of the measure calls for carefully designed stimuli.

Indexed as

Reaction TimeAcoustic StimulationAttentionAuditory PerceptionAuditory ThresholdDilatationFemaleHearingHumansMaleMydriasisPupilSensitivity and SpecificitySpeech Perceptionauditory processinglistening effortpupillometrypupil responsereview

Identifiers

PMID30249172
PMCPMC6156203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.