Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34259827›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2021

Decoding binary decisions under differential target probabilities from pupil dilation: A random forest approach.

Christoph Strauch, Teresa Hirzle, Stefan Van der Stigchel, Andreas Bulling

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2021. 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christoph StrauchExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
Teresa HirzleInstitute of Media Informatics, Ulm University, Germany.
Stefan Van der StigchelExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
Andreas BullingInstitute for Visualisation and Interactive Systems, University of Stuttgart, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although our pupils slightly dilate when we look at an intended target, they do not when we look at irrelevant distractors. This finding suggests that it may be possible to decode the intention of an observer, understood as the outcome of implicit covert binary decisions, from the pupillary dynamics over time. However, few previous works have investigated the feasibility of this approach and the few that did, did not control for possible confounds such as motor-execution, changes in brightness, or target and distractor probability. We report on our efforts to decode intentions from pupil dilation obtained under strict experimental control on a single trial basis using a machine learning approach. The basis for our analyses are data of 69 participants who looked at letters that needed to be selected with stimulus probabilities that varied systematically in a blockwise manner (n = 19,417 trials). We confirm earlier findings that pupil dilation is indicative of intentions and show that these can be decoded with a classification performance of up to 76% area under the curve for receiver operating characteristic curves if targets are rarer than distractors. To better understand which characteristics of the pupillary signal are most informative, we finally compare relative feature importances. The first derivative of pupil size changes was found to be most relevant, allowing us to decode intention within only about 800 ms of trial onset. Taken together, our results provide credible insights into the potential of decoding intentions from pupil dilation and may soon form the basis for new applications in visual search, gaze-based interaction, or human-robot interaction.

Indexed as

IntentionPupilHumansProbability

Identifiers

PMID34259827
PMCPMC8288052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.