ArticleJournal of vision2026
Task-dependent pupillary responses to glossiness and attractiveness judgments.
Article in Journal of vision, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human pupillary responses are influenced by not only low-level visual properties but also cognitive and affective factors related to task demands. Nevertheless, how the temporal dynamics of pupil modulation differ across evaluative tasks in the context of material perception remains unclear. In this study, we investigated how pupillary responses vary when observers evaluate the same set of object images for either glossiness or attractiveness. These two perceptual attributes were selected to represent distinct cognitive demands: Glossiness is more closely related to lower-level visual processing, whereas attractiveness involves higher-level evaluative processing. The stimuli included 60 grayscale object photographs selected from the THINGS database, representing common real-world items without social or facial content. Low-level image statistics were controlled using histogram matching to equalize luminance and contrast across all the stimuli. Participants viewed each image for 3,000 ms while maintaining central fixation and rated its glossiness or attractiveness on a 7-point scale in separate task blocks. Grand-average waveforms revealed task-dependent modulations of pupil size across rating levels, which is consistent with previous reports that pupillary responses vary with evaluative context even for identical stimuli. Furthermore, temporal principal component analysis and generalized additive modeling revealed that higher glossiness ratings were associated with greater pupil constriction at early, light reflex-like latencies, whereas higher attractiveness ratings elicited greater pupil dilation at later time points. These findings suggest that distinct temporal profiles of pupil size reflect task-specific processing demands in material perception, which is potentially consistent with differences in temporal weighting between visual and affective evaluations.
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.