Advertisement

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 81, Issue 2, pp 407–419 | Cite as

Pupillometry tracks fluctuations in working memory performance

  • Matthew K. RobisonEmail author
  • Nash Unsworth
Article

Abstract

In 3 experiments, we examined fluctuations in working memory (WM) performance and associated changes in pretrial and task-evoked pupil diameter. Additionally, we examined whether particularly poor trials were accompanied by self-reports of off-task attentional states. The results demonstrated that task-evoked pupillary responses can be used to measure moment-to-moment fluctuations in the success of WM maintenance during delay intervals. Further, when individuals reported being in an off-task attentional state, their WM performance suffered. Additionally, when probed directly after a particularly poor trial, participants reported being in an off-task attentional state more often than at random intervals throughout the task. So behavioral, subjective, and physiological data converged when people experienced WM failures. Although pretrial pupil diameter did not consistently differentiate between successful and unsuccessful trials, variability in pretrial pupil diameter accounted for a significant portion of variance in WM task performance. This effect persisted after controlling for mean task-evoked pupillary response and variability in task-evoked pupillary responses. Thus, one of the major reasons people varied in the consistency with which they utilized their WM system was variability in arousal. Such variability in arousal is potentially due to variation in the functioning of the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine (LC-NE) neuromodulatory system, and thus may underlie individual differences in WM capacity and attention control.

Keywords

Working memory Attention Pupillometry Mind-wandering 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Steven Karmann and Ashley Miller for their assistance in data collection.

References

  1. Adam, K.C.S., Mance, I., Fukuda, K., & Vogel, E.K. (2015). The contribution of attentional lapses to individual differences in visual working memory capacity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27, 1601–1616.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adam, K.C.S., Robison, M.K., & Vogel, E.K. (2018). Contralateral delay activity tracks fluctuations in working memory performance. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30, 1229–1240.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adam, K.C.S., & Vogel, E.K. (2016). Reducing failures of working memory with performance feedback. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1520–1527.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1019-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adam, K.C.S., & Vogel, E.K. (2017). Confident failures: Lapses of working memory reveal a metacognitive blind spot. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 1506–1523.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1331-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alnæs, D., Sneve, M.H., Espeseth, T., Endestad, T., van de Pavert, S.H.P., & Laeng, B. (2014). Pupil size signals mental effort deployed during multiple object tracking and predicts brain activity in the dorsal attention network and the locus coeruleus. Journal of Vision, 14, 1–1.  https://doi.org/10.1167/14.4.1
  6. Ariel, R., & Castel, A.D. (2014). Eyes wide open: Enhanced pupil dilation when selectively studying important information. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 337–344.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3744-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J.D. (2005). An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: Adaptive gain and optimal performance. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 28, 403–450.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aust, F., & Barth, M. (2018). papaja: Create APA manuscripts with R Markdown. Retrieved from https://github.com/crsh/papaja.
  9. Cowan, N. (2001). Metatheory of storage capacity limits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 154–176.Google Scholar
  10. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P.A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engle, R.W., Tuholski, S.W., Laughlin, J.E., & Conway, A.R. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Franklin, M.S., Broadway, J.M., Mrazek, M.D., Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J.W. (2013). Window to the wandering mind: Pupillometry of spontaneous thought while reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(12), 2289–2294.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.858170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilzenrat, M.S., Nieuwenhuis, S., Jepma, M., & Cohen, J.D. (2010). Pupil diameter tracks changes in control state predicted by the adaptive gain theory of locus coeruleus function. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10, 252–269.  https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.10.2.252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heitz, R.P., Schrock, J.C., Payne, T.W., & Engle, R.W. (2008). Effects of incentive on working memory capacity: Behavioral and pupillometric data. Psychophysiology, 45, 119–129.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00605.x Google Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D., & Beatty, J. (1966). Pupil diameter and load on memory. Science, 154, 1583–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lenartowicz, A., Simpson, G.V., & Cohen, M.S. (2013). Perspective: Causes and functional significance of temporal variations in attention control. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 381.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00381 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Luck, S.J., & Vogel, E.K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390, 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murphy, P.R., Robertson, I.H., Balsters, J.H., & O’connell, R.G. (2011). Pupillometry and p3 index the locus coeruleus—noradrenergic arousal function in humans. Psychophysiology, 48, 1532–1543.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01226.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Papesh, M.H., Goldinger, S.D., & Hout, M.C. (2012). Memory strength and specificity revealed by pupillometry. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83, 56–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pelagatti, C., Binda, P., & Vannucci, M. (2018). Tracking the dynamics of mind wandering: Insights from pupillometry. Journal of Cognition, 1, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/.
  22. Rosen, V.M., & Engle, R.W. (1997). The role of working memory capacity in retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sara, S.J. (2009). The locus coeruleus and noradrenergic modulation of cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10, 211.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2573 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Unsworth, N., Fukuda, K., Awh, E., & Vogel, E.K. (2014). Working memory and fluid intelligence: Capacity, attention control, and secondary memory retrieval. Cognitive Psychology, 71, 1–26. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Unsworth, N., Fukuda, K., Awh, E., & Vogel, E.K. (2015). Working memory delay activity predicts individual differences in cognitive abilities. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27, 853–865.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Unsworth, N., & Robison, M.K. (2015). Individual differences in the allocation of attention to items in working memory: Evidence from pupillometry. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 757–765.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0747-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Unsworth, N., & Robison, M.K. (2016a). Pupillary correlates of lapses of sustained attention. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16, 601–615.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-016-0417-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Unsworth, N., & Robison, M.K. (2016b). The influence of lapses of attention on working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 44, 188–196.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0560-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Unsworth, N., & Robison, M.K. (2017a). A locus coeruleus-norepinephrine account of individual differences in working memory capacity and attention control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1282–1311.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1220-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Unsworth, N., & Robison, M.K. (2017b). The importance of arousal for variation in working memory capacity and attention control: A latent variable pupillometry study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 1962–1987.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000421 Google Scholar
  31. Unsworth, N., & Robison, M.K. (2018a). Tracking arousal state and mind wandering with pupillometry. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 18, 638–664.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-018-0594-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Unsworth, N., & Robison, M.K. (2018b). Tracking working memory maintenance with pupillometry. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80, 461–484.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1455-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Unsworth, N., Robison, M.K., & Miller, A.L. (2018). Pupillary correlates of fluctuations in sustained attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30, 1241–1253.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Unsworth, N., & Spillers, G.J. (2010). Working memory capacity: Attention control, secondary memory, or both? A direct test of the dual-component model. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 392–406.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vogel, E.K., McCollough, A.W., & Machizawa, M.G. (2005). Neural measures reveal individual differences in controlling access to working memory. Nature, 438, 500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations