ArticleScientific reports2026
Pupil- and gaze dynamics track emotion content in naturalistic speech.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cortical tracking of speech features is a well-established marker of continuous speech processing, but far less is known about listeners' ocular responses to speech rhythm. Ocular responses are central to active sensing models in the auditory domain, where motor recruitment guides temporal speech prediction and attention allocation, potentially shaped by non-rhythmic cues, such as emotions. Here, we ask whether listeners' pupil response and eye movements track the acoustic speech signals and to what extent this tracking is modulated by emotion-related top-down factors, including subjective emotion ratings, mood, and trait empathy. In a validation study (N = 100), participants passively listened to two TED talks and intermittently rated speech segments on valence (negative-positive) and arousal (low-high). This suggested substantial variability in valence and arousal across speech segments in both talks. In the second study (N = 41), participants completed the same task while pupillometry and electrooculography (EOG) were recorded. Mutual information was used to quantify speech tracking in pupil dilation, along with horizontal and vertical eye movements. All ocular signals significantly tracked speech at low frequencies. High-arousal speech was associated with stronger pupil tracking but weaker vertical and horizontal EOG tracking. Negative speech valence was linked to stronger tracking in pupil and vertical eye-movement signals. Interactions between the speech-emotion dimensions, as well as their interactions with listeners' mood, further shaped these effects, giving rise to distinct patterns across ocular measures. Taken together, our findings provide evidence that ocular activity dynamically aligns to the temporal structure of natural speech and that this tracking is sensitive to both stimulus-driven and listener-dependent emotional factors.
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.