1967
DOI: 10.3758/bf03210310
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pupillary response as a general measure of activation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

9
88
4
1

Year Published

1967
1967
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 144 publications
(102 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
9
88
4
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, painfully loud sounds increase muscle tension causing larger pupil size (Nunnally, Knott, Duchnowski, & Parker, 1967). Similar findings were obtained when observers expected to hear a gunshot.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
“…For example, painfully loud sounds increase muscle tension causing larger pupil size (Nunnally, Knott, Duchnowski, & Parker, 1967). Similar findings were obtained when observers expected to hear a gunshot.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
“…The lack of a relationship between pupil diameter and rated pleasantness of words in Experiment 2 is in agreement with results reported by Paivio & Simpson (1966). It can be argued that the words were not provocative enough to produce the dilation responses since there is a considerable amount of recent evidence that dilation is closely associated with stimuli or tasks which produce or require arousal (Beatty & Kahneman, 1966;Kahneman & Beatty, 1966Nunnally, Knott, Duchnowski, & Parker, 1967;Paivio & Simpson, 1966).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Although various sound-containing stimuli induce pupillary dilation, effects are nominal (19) or very brief (1) and show rapid habituation (1,19,61). Notably, one study failed to detect dilation at decibel levels comparable with that used in this study (53). To investigate this question further, subsequent studies could examine the effects of musically enhanced bird song in subjects maintained under conditions of near darkness (6,20) or in the totally blind (42), as has been done for other nonphotic stimuli, or could test subjects in the paradigm used by Cajochen et al (16).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%