ArticleJournal of vision2020
Component processes in free-viewing visual search: Insights from fixation-aligned pupillary response averaging.
Article in Journal of vision, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual Speech Reduces Cognitive Effort as Measured by EEG Theta Power and Pupil Dilation.eNeuro · 2025Article
- Webcam eye tracking close to laboratory standards: Comparing a new webcam-based system and the EyeLink 1000.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Neural α Oscillations and Pupil Size Differentially Index Cognitive Demand under Competing Audiovisual Task Conditions.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Pupillometry and the vigilance decrement: Task-evoked but not baseline pupil measures reflect declining performance in visual vigilance tasks.The European journal of neuroscience · 2022Article
- Decoding binary decisions under differential target probabilities from pupil dilation: A random forest approach.Journal of vision · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pupil size changes during a visual search may reflect cognitive processes, such as effort and memory accumulation, but methodological confounds and the general lack of literature in this area leave the reliability of findings open to question. We used a novel synthesis of experimental methods and averaging techniques to explore how cognitive processing unfolds during free-viewing visual search for multiple targets. Twenty-seven participants completed 152 searches across two separate 1-hour sessions. The number of targets present (Targets: 0, 1, 2, and 3) in each trial was the main manipulation and the task was to "find all of the targets" and report the total via mouse-click at the end of the trial. Search time lasted for 10 seconds or until the participant purported to have found all of the targets, in which case they could terminate the search via keypress. Whole-trial pupil analysis revealed a significant effect of button pressing as well as a significant main effect of targets for trials that were not self-terminated via button press. Fixation-aligned pupil responses revealed transient modulations in pupil size following initial fixations on targets but not distractors and refixations on both targets and distractors. Owing to rigorous control over experimental confounds and a detailed analysis and correction of eye-movement-related measurement error, we confidently discuss these findings in terms of task-related processing and underlying brain activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.