Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1. E. H. Hess and J. M. Polt, “ Pupil size in relation to mental activity during simple problem-solving,” Science 143(3611), 11901192 (1964).
2. D. Kahneman and J. Beatty, “ Pupil diameter and load on memory,” Science 154(3756), 15831585 (1966).
3. S. E. Kuchinsky, J. B. Ahlstrom, K. I. Vaden, S. L. Cute, L. E. Humes, J. R. Dubno, and M. A. Eckert, “ Pupil size varies with word listening and response selection difficulty in older adults with hearing loss,” Psychophysiol. 50(1), 2334 (2013).
4. T. Koelewijn, B. G. Shinn-Cunningham, A. A. Zekveld, and S. E. Kramer, “ The pupil response is sensitive to divided attention during speech processing,” Hear. Res. 312, 114120 (2014).
5. M. B. Winn, J. R. Edwards, and R. Y. Litovsky, “ The impact of auditory spectral resolution on listening effort revealed by pupil dilation,” Ear Hear. 36(4), e153e165 (2015).
6. J. Beatty, “ Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources,” Psychol. Bull. 91(2), 276292 (1982).
7. B. Hoeks and W. J. M. Levelt, “ Pupillary dilation as a measure of attention: A quantitative system analysis,” Behav. Res. Meth. Ins. C. 25(1), 1626 (1993).
8. S. M. Wierda, H. van Rijn, N. A. Taatgen, and S. Martens, “ Pupil dilation deconvolution reveals the dynamics of attention at high temporal resolution,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109(22), 84568460 (2012).
9. J.-M. Hupé, C. Lamirel, and J. Lorenceau, “ Pupil dynamics during bistable motion perception,” J. Vision 9(7), 119 (2009).
10. M. P. Janisse, Pupillometry: The Psychology of the Pupillary Response ( Hemisphere, Washington, 1977), p. 912.
11. C. R. Chapman, S. Oka, D. H. Bradshaw, R. C. Jacobson, and G. W. Donaldson, “ Phasic pupil dilation response to noxious stimulation in normal volunteers: Relationship to brain evoked potentials and pain report,” Psychophysiol. 36(1), 4452 (1999).
12. R. A. Cole, Y. Muthusamy, and M. Fanty, “ The ISOLET spoken letter database,” Technical Report 90-004, Oregon Graduate Institute, Hillsboro, OR (1990), paper 205.
13. R. V. Shannon, F.-G. Zeng, V. Kamath, J. Wygonski, and M. Ekelid, “ Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues,” Science 270(5234), 303304 (1995).
14. B. C. J. Moore and B. R. Glasberg, “ Formulae describing frequency selectivity as a function of frequency and level, and their use in calculating excitation patterns,” Hear. Res. 28(2–3), 209225 (1987).
15. E. D. Larson and D. A. Engemann, “ pyeparse: 0.1.0,” (2015).
16. E. Maris and R. Oostenveld, “ Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data,” J. Neurosci. Meth. 164(1), 177190 (2007).
17. A. Gramfort, M. Luessi, E. D. Larson, D. A. Engemann, D. Strohmeier, C. Brodbeck, R. Goj, M. Jas, T. Brooks, L. Parkkonen, and M. S. Hämäläinen, “ MEG and EEG data analysis with MNE-Python,” Front. Neurosci. 7, 267 (2013).

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



Analysis of pupil dilation has been used as an index of attentional effort in the auditory domain. Previous work has modeled the pupillary response to attentional effort as a linear time-invariant system with a characteristic impulse response, and used deconvolution to estimate the attentional effort that gives rise to changes in pupil size. Here it is argued that one parameter of the impulse response (the latency of response maximum, ) has been mis-estimated in the literature; a different estimate is presented, and it is shown how deconvolution with this value of yields more intuitively plausible and informative results.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd