Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38326632›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024

Pupillary correlates of individual differences in n-back task performance.

Matthew K Robison, Lauren D Garner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Measuring Mental Effort in Real Time Using Pupillometry.Journal of eye movement research · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthew K RobisonDepartment of Psychology, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA. matthew.robison@uta.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3565-6002
Lauren D GarnerDepartment of Psychology, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA.
The University of Texas at Arlington · US

Funding

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences W911NF-23-1-0300U.S. Naval Research Laboratory N00173-22-2-C006
6 · The paper itself

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

AttentionIndividualityMemory, Short-TermPupilAdultFemaleHumansMalePattern Recognition, VisualYoung AdultAttentionPupillometryWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID38326632
OpenAlexW4391593905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.