Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32203562›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Dissociable mappings of tonic and phasic pupillary features onto cognitive processes involved in mental arithmetic.

Russell A Cohen Hoffing, Nina Lauharatanahirun, Daniel E Forster, Javier O Garcia, Jean M Vettel, Steven M Thurman

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Russell A Cohen HoffingU.S. Combat Capabilities Development Command Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Division, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3478-8196
Nina LauharatanahirunU.S. Combat Capabilities Development Command Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Division, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, United States of America.
Daniel E ForsterU.S. Combat Capabilities Development Command Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Division, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, United States of America.
Javier O GarciaU.S. Combat Capabilities Development Command Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Division, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, United States of America.
Jean M VettelU.S. Combat Capabilities Development Command Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Division, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, United States of America.
Steven M ThurmanU.S. Combat Capabilities Development Command Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Division, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pupil size modulations have been used for decades as a window into the mind, and several pupillary features have been implicated in a variety of cognitive processes. Thus, a general challenge facing the field of pupillometry has been understanding which pupil features should be most relevant for explaining behavior in a given task domain. In the present study, a longitudinal design was employed where participants completed 8 biweekly sessions of a classic mental arithmetic task for the purposes of teasing apart the relationships between tonic/phasic pupil features (baseline, peak amplitude, peak latency) and two task-related cognitive processes including mental processing load (indexed by math question difficulty) and decision making (indexed by response times). We used multi-level modeling to account for individual variation while identifying pupil-to-behavior relationships at the single-trial and between-session levels. We show a dissociation between phasic and tonic features with peak amplitude and latency (but not baseline) driven by ongoing task-related processing, whereas baseline was driven by state-level effects that changed over a longer time period (i.e. weeks). Finally, we report a dissociation between peak amplitude and latency whereby amplitude reflected surprise and processing load, and latency reflected decision making times.

Indexed as

CognitionThinkingAttentionDecision MakingFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMalePupilReaction Time

Identifiers

PMID32203562
PMCPMC7089555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.