ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024
Pupillary correlates of individual differences in n-back task performance.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2024. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the test-retest reliability and behavioral correlates of pupil responses in the n-back task.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Measuring Mental Effort in Real Time Using Pupillometry.Journal of eye movement research · 2025Article
- Determining Factors for the Development of Critical Thinking in Higher Education.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Review
- The impact of greening interventions in school grounds on social behavior and cognitive performance among primary school children.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Exploring the relationship between melanopsin gene variants, sleep, and markers of brain health.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We used pupillometry during a 2-back task to examine individual differences in the intensity and consistency of attention and their relative role in a working memory task. We used sensitivity, or the ability to distinguish targets (2-back matches) and nontargets, as the measure of task performance; task-evoked pupillary responses (TEPRs) as the measure of attentional intensity; and intraindividual pretrial pupil variability as the measure of attentional consistency. TEPRs were greater on target trials compared with nontarget trials, although there was no difference in TEPR magnitude when participants answered correctly or incorrectly to targets. Importantly, this effect interacted with performance: high performers showed a greater separation in their TEPRs between targets and nontargets, whereas there was little difference for low performers. Further, in regression analysis, larger TEPRs on target trials predicted better performance, whereas larger TEPRs on nontarget trials predicted worse performance. Sensitivity positively correlated with average pretrial pupil diameter and negatively correlated with intraindividual variability in pretrial pupil diameter. Overall, we found evidence that both attentional intensity (TEPRs) and consistency (pretrial pupil variation) predict performance on an n-back working memory task.
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.