Pupil dynamics: A potential proxy of neural preparation for goal‐directed eye movement

Pandey, Pragya; Ray, Supriya

doi:10.1111/ejn.15453

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 134 publications

(157 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, recent studies questioned whether the observed facilitation in visual discrimination at the location of an imminent saccade was due to pre-saccadic orientation of attention or by means of the consolidation of visual short-term memory following the orientation of gaze ( Born et al, 2013 ; Huber-Huber et al, 2021 ). Our data suggest that pre-saccadic orientation of attention did not contribute to the modulation of visually evoked pupillary responses, suggesting no high-level perceptual benefit from pre-saccadic pupillary constriction except the prevention from overwhelming visual transients on the fovea during the gaze-fixation-gaze cycle in a naturally heterogenous visual world ( Mostofi et al, 2020 ; Pandey and Ray, 2021 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…In the current context, eCFD in the CCP task was determined using a decision cue in the form of an array of square checker boxes (each of size ∼2.5° × 2.5° at an eccentricity of ∼12°), whereas in the CCC task, a thin broken annular decision cue with a small outer (∼1.8°) and inner (∼1.6°) radius determined eCFD. We simulated a biomechanical model of pupillary aperture ( Usui and Hirata, 1995 ; Pandey and Ray, 2021 ) with the two different stimulus strengths in an arbitrary unit, which we referred to as an effective CFD or eCFD. Simulated data mimicked the observed data, in support of the possibility of a critical contribution from selective attention in modulating pupil size.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We pooled several hundreds of normalized, smoothened, and baseline-corrected pupil size in all valid trials across all participants. Previously, the collated pupil data yielded a reliable comparison of the average pupil size, especially in the studies that recruited relatively fewer participants ( n ≤ 20), and allowed fitting a unique model to the average PLR across trials (e.g., Mathôt et al, 2015 ; Pandey and Ray, 2021 ). In total, we pooled 3,531 trials (1,779 correct no-stop trials, 902 canceled stop trials, and 850 non-canceled stop trials) in Experiment 1, and 3,579 trials (1,900 no-stop trials, 803 canceled stop trials, and 876 non-canceled stop trials) in Experiment 2 for subsequent analyses.…”

Section: Experiments 2: Peripheral Choice-countermanding Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The pupils of the eyes reflexively and consensually constrict in light and dilate in dark. PLR is not completely reflexive; many non-visual cognitive factors, including attention (e.g., Binda et al, 2013 ; Naber et al, 2013 ), saccadic eye movement preparation ( Jainta et al, 2011 ; Mathôt et al, 2015 ; Wang et al, 2018 ; Pandey and Ray, 2021 ; Wang and Munoz, 2021 ), decision-making (e.g., de Gee et al, 2014 ; Sheng et al, 2020 ), and even subliminal stimuli can influence PLR ( Laeng et al, 2012 ; Einhäuser, 2017 ; Mathôt, 2018 ). On the other hand, pupil size too can influence cognition; for instance, movement planning ( Cherng et al, 2020 ) and esthetic appraisal evaluation ( Liao et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In primate’s brain, the frontal eye field (FEF) is an area that not only contributes to covert orientation of attention for the discrimination of the target from distractors ( Wardak et al, 2006 ; Murthy et al, 2009 ) and the goal-directed saccadic eye movement ( Hanes and Schall, 1996 ; Ray et al, 2009 ; Sendhilnathan et al, 2021 ), FEF neurons also send projections to the parasympathetic PLR pathway responsible for pupillary constriction ( Wang and Munoz, 2015 ; Ebitz and Moore, 2017 ). Recently, we found that the dynamics of visually evoked pupil dynamics might act as a proxy of the FEF activity during target selection and saccade planning ( Pandey and Ray, 2021 ). In the current study, we tested whether pupillary response could be distinguished between the deployment of attention either focused at the center or distributed to the periphery to select the target from alternatives for gaze orientation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Influence of the Location of a Decision Cue on the Dynamics of Pupillary Light Response

Pandey

Ray

2022

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pupils of the eyes reflexively constrict in light and dilate in dark to optimize retinal illumination. Non-visual cognitive factors, like attention, arousal, decision-making, etc., also influence pupillary light response (PLR). During passive viewing, the eccentricity of a stimulus modulates the pupillary aperture size driven by spatially weighted corneal flux density (CFD), which is the product of luminance and the area of the stimulus. Whether the scope of attention also influences PLR remains unclear. In this study, we contrasted the pupil dynamics between diffused and focused attentional conditions during decision-making, while the global CFD remained the same in the two conditions. A population of 20 healthy humans participated in a pair of forced choice tasks. They distributed attention to the peripheral decision cue in one task, and concentrated at the center in the other to select the target from four alternatives for gaze orientation. The location of this cue did not influence participants’ reaction time (RT). However, the magnitude of constriction was significantly less in the task that warranted attention to be deployed at the center than on the periphery. We observed similar pupil dynamics when participants either elicited or canceled a saccadic eye movement, which ruled out pre-saccadic obligatory attentional orientation contributing to PLR. We further addressed how the location of attentional deployment might have influenced PLR. We simulated a biomechanical model of PLR with visual stimulation of different strengths as inputs corresponding to the two attentional conditions. In this homeomorphic model, the computational characteristic of each element was derived from the physiological and/or mechanical properties of the corresponding biological element. The simulation of this model successfully mimicked the observed data. In contrast to common belief that the global ambient luminosity drives pupillary response, the results of our study suggest that the effective CFD (eCFD) determined via the luminance multiplied by the size of the stimulus at the location of deployed attention in the visual space is critical for the magnitude of pupillary constriction.

show abstract