ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Acoustic Salience Drives Pupillary Dynamics in an Interrupted, Reverberant Task.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Listeners face many challenges when trying to maintain attention to a target source in everyday settings; for instance, reverberation distorts acoustic cues and interruptions capture attention. However, little is known about how these challenges affect the ability to maintain selective attention. Here, we measured syllable recall accuracy and pupil dilation during a spatial selective attention task that was sometimes disrupted. Participants heard two competing, temporally interleaved syllable streams presented in pseudo-anechoic or reverberant environments. On randomly selected trials, a sudden interruption occurred mid-sequence. Compared to anechoic trials, reverberant performance was worse overall, and the interrupter disrupted performance. In uninterrupted trials, reverberation reduced peak pupil dilation both when it was consistent across all stimuli in a block and when it was randomized trial to trial, suggesting temporal smearing reduced clarity of the scene and the salience of events in the ongoing streams. Pupil dilations in response to interruptions indicated perceptual salience was strong across reverberant and anechoic conditions. Specifically, baseline pupil size before trials did not vary across room conditions, and mixing or blocking of trials (altering stimulus expectations) had no impact on pupillary responses. Together, these findings highlight that stimulus salience drives cognitive load more strongly than does task performance.
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.