2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2023.108547
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pupil dilation during encoding, but not type of auditory stimulation, predicts recognition success in face memory

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The mean value of the dilations seemed to scale with stimulus duration (although these durations were so far only varied across experiments that also differed in other variables) and the dilation latency precisely reflected the stimulus onset latency. This comprehensive assessment of pupil responses to task-irrelevant sounds complements and extends previous work in important ways (Cronin et al, 2023;Petersen et al, 2017;Tona et al, 2016). For example, Petersen et al (2017) demonstrated the dependence of the pupil response amplitude on sound intensity, while we here demonstrated the dependence on sound duration and/or frequency, providing more room for future experimental manipulation (the permissible range of sound pressure levels in human experiments is quite limited).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The mean value of the dilations seemed to scale with stimulus duration (although these durations were so far only varied across experiments that also differed in other variables) and the dilation latency precisely reflected the stimulus onset latency. This comprehensive assessment of pupil responses to task-irrelevant sounds complements and extends previous work in important ways (Cronin et al, 2023;Petersen et al, 2017;Tona et al, 2016). For example, Petersen et al (2017) demonstrated the dependence of the pupil response amplitude on sound intensity, while we here demonstrated the dependence on sound duration and/or frequency, providing more room for future experimental manipulation (the permissible range of sound pressure levels in human experiments is quite limited).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…Task-irrelevant sounds can accelerate human responses to (task-relevant) visual stimuli (Hackley et al, 2009;Hackley & Valle-Inclán, 1998;Hershenson, 1962;Jepma et al, 2009;Stahl & Rammsayer, 2005;Tona et al, 2016). Importantly, task-irrelevant sounds dilate the pupil (Cronin et al, 2023;Petersen et al, 2017;Tona et al, 2016) and drive locus coeruleus activity (Grant et al, 1988;Joshi & Gold, 2020Joshi et al, 2016). However, other brainstem nuclei also respond to auditory soundsmost strongly the inferior colliculus that is part of the auditory pathway, and whose activity is also read out by pupil size (Joshi et al, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One interpretation of these findings is that resource allocation associated with processing of events is reflected in pupil dilation patterns [ 34 , 35 ] and subsequently predicts the strength of memory. Nevertheless, other findings indicate that decreased pupil dilation, or pupil constriction, may predict the type and/or intensity of subsequent memory [ 26 , 29 , 30 , 36 ]. This is in line with the pupil old/new effect, where diminished pupil dilation is observed for new compared to old stimuli in recognition memory tasks ([ 37 , 38 , 39 ]; see also Section 3 below).…”
Section: Novelty Detection and Encoding Mechanismsmentioning
confidence: 99%