Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pupil Size Variations Reveal Information About Hierarchical Decision-Making Processes

  • Published:
Cognitive Computation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction: Pupil size is a well-known indicator of low-level decision-making processes. However, it is unclear whether these involuntary eye data can represent information about the interwoven processes of hierarchical decision-making. In hierarchical decisions, high-level decision-making depends on the process of making low-level decisions, and the result of these interwoven processes is determined by feedback. Therefore, the exact cause of negative feedback is unclear, as it may be the result of low-level, high-level, or both low- and high-level incorrect decisions. In this study, we investigated the characteristics of eye data (pupil diameter) in the interwoven processes of hierarchical decision-making. Methods: We designed a hierarchical psychophysical experiment in which participants were asked to report their low- and high-level decisions and their confidence simultaneously on one of the colored bars. Participants received correct feedback in a trial when reporting both decisions correctly. During the experiment, the eye data of the participants were recorded by an eye-tracking device. Results: Our findings suggest that pupil size conveys information about high-level decisions as well. Furthermore, this study shows that three parameters (introduced in previous studies), negative feedback in successive trials, stimulus strength (uniformity with confidence), and decision urgency, are all represented in pupil size. Conclusion: The findings support the idea that involuntary eye data are influenced by decision-making-related brain activity in decision-making processes and not just visual stimulus features.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data will be made available upon reasonable request to the author.

References

  1. Rondeel EW, Van Steenbergen H, Holland RW, Van Knippenberg A. A closer look at cognitive control: differences in resource allocation during updating, inhibition and switching as revealed by pupillometry. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9:494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alnæs D, Sneve MH, Espeseth T, Endestad T, van de Pavert SHP, Laeng B. Pupil size signals mental effort deployed during multiple object tracking and predicts brain activity in the dorsal attention network and the locus coeruleus. J Vis. 2014;14(4):1–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Filipowicz, Glaze, Kable, Gold. Pupil diameter encodes the idiosyncratic, cognitive complexity of belief updating. Elife. 2020;9:e57872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Maier S, Grueschow M. Pupil dilation predicts individual success in emotion regulation and dietary self-control, BioRxiv, p. 2020.11. 19.376202, 2020.

  5. Van Slooten JC, Jahfari S, Knapen T, Theeuwes J. How pupil responses track value-based decision-making during and after reinforcement learning. PLoS Comput Biol. 2018;14(11):e1006632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. de Gee JW, Knapen T, Donner TH. Decision-related pupil dilation reflects upcoming choice and individual bias, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 111, no. 5, pp. E618-E625, 2014.

  7. Urai AE, Braun A, Donner TH. Pupil-linked arousal is driven by decision uncertainty and alters serial choice bias. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):14637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lempert KM, Chen YL, Fleming SM. Relating pupil dilation and metacognitive confidence during auditory decision-making. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(5):e0126588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shooshtari SV, Sadrabadi JE, Azizi Z, Ebrahimpour R. Confidence representation of perceptual decision by eeg and eye data in a random dot motion task. Neuroscience. 2019;406:510–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Murphy PR, Vandekerckhove J, Nieuwenhuis S. Pupil-linked arousal determines variability in perceptual decision making. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014;10(9):e1003854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zylberberg A, Lorteije A, Ouellette G, De Zeeuw I, Sigman, Roelfsema. Serial, parallel and hierarchical decision making in primates. Elife. 2017;6:e17331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Prezenski S, Brechmann A, Wolff S, Russwinkel N. A cognitive modeling approach to strategy formation in dynamic decision making. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Van Slooten JC, Jahfari S, Knapen T, Theeuwes J. Pupil responses as indicators of value-based decision-making, bioRxiv, p. 302166, 2018.

  14. Cohen Hoffing RA, Lauharatanahirun N, Forster DE, Garcia JO, Vettel JM, Thurman SM. Dissociable mappings of tonic and phasic pupillary features onto cognitive processes involved in mental arithmetic. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(3):e0230517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Colizoli O, de Gee JW, Urai AE, Donner TH. Task-evoked pupil responses reflect internal belief states. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):13702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zénon A. Eye pupil signals information gain, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 286, no. 1911, p. 20191593, 2019.

  17. Lawlor J, Zagala A, Jamali S, Boubenec Y. Pupillary dynamics reflect the impact of temporal expectation on detection strategy, Iscience, vol. 26, no. 2, 2023.

  18. Reddi B, Carpenter RH. The influence of urgency on decision time. Nat Neurosci. 2000;3(8):827–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hyafil A, Moreno-Bote R. Breaking down hierarchies of decision-making in primates. Elife. 2017;6:e16650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lorteije JA, Zylberberg A, Ouellette BG, De Zeeuw CI, Sigman M, Roelfsema PR. The formation of hierarchical decisions in the visual cortex, Neuron, vol. 87, no. 6, pp. 1344–1356, 2015.

  21. Purcell BA, Kiani R. Hierarchical decision processes that operate over distinct timescales underlie choice and changes in strategy, Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, vol. 113, no. 31, pp. E4531-E4540, 2016.

  22. Sarafyazd M, Jazayeri M. Hierarchical reasoning by neural circuits in the frontal cortex. Science. 2019;364(6441):eaav8911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Miletić S. Neural evidence for a role of urgency in the speed-accuracy trade-off in perceptual decision-making. J Neurosci. 2016;36(22):5909–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lam E. The psychophysics of decision making in a two-direction random dot motion target selection task, 2014.

  25. Yaghoubi KC, Kabbara S, Arian S, Kobaissi H, Peters MA, Seitz AR. Comparing random dot motion in MATLAB vs. Inquisit Millisecond. Front Psychol. 2022;13:1035518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Palmer J, Huk AC, Shadlen MN. The effect of stimulus strength on the speed and accuracy of a perceptual decision. J Vis. 2005;5(5):1–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hanks TD, Ditterich J, Shadlen MN. Microstimulation of macaque area LIP affects decision-making in a motion discrimination task. Nat Neurosci. 2006;9(5):682–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zylberberg A, Fetsch, Shadlen. The influence of evidence volatility on choice, reaction time and confidence in a perceptual decision. Elife. 2016;5:e17688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Quick R Jr. A vector-magnitude model of contrast detection, Kybernetik, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 65–67, 1974.

  30. Roitman JD, Shadlen MN. Response of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time task. J Neurosci. 2002;22(21):9475–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Braem S, Coenen E, Bombeke K, Van Bochove ME, Notebaert W. Open your eyes for prediction errors. Cogn Affect. 2015;15:374–80. & Behavioral Neuroscience

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. de Gardelle V, Mamassian P. Weighting mean and variability during confidence judgments. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(3):e0120870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fröber K, Pittino F, Dreisbach G. How sequential changes in reward expectation modulate cognitive control: Pupillometry as a tool to monitor dynamic changes in reward expectation. Int J Psychophysiol. 2020;148:35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. van der Wel P, Van Steenbergen H. Pupil dilation as an index of effort in cognitive control tasks: a review. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018;25:2005–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Haro S, Rao HM, Quatieri TF, Smalt CJ. EEG alpha and pupil diameter reflect endogenous auditory attention switching and listening effort. Eur J Neurosci. 2022;55(5):1262–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mathôt S. Pupillometry: psychology, physiology, and function. J Cognition, vol. 1, no. 1, 2018.

  37. Franzen L, Cabugao A, Grohmann B, Elalouf K, Johnson AP. Individual pupil size changes as a robust indicator of cognitive familiarity differences. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(1):e0262753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Warda S, Simola J, Terhune DB. Pupillometry tracks errors in interval timing. Behav Neurosci. 2022;136(5):495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has partially been supported by the Cognitive Sciences and Technologies Council under contract number 9114., the Institute for Science and Research Branch of Islamic Azad University, and Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University. We are thankful to Jamal Esmaily Sadrabadi for his helpful discussions.

Funding

This study received financial support from the Cognitive Sciences and Technologies Council under contract number 9114., the Institute for Science and Research Branch of Islamic Azad University, and Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

    Leyla Yahyaie & Abbas Koochari

  2. Center for Cognitive Science, Institute for Convergence Science and Technology (ICST), Sharif University of Technology, P.O.Box:14588-89694, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran

    Reza Ebrahimpour

  3. School of Cognitive Sciences, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran

    Reza Ebrahimpour

Authors
  1. Leyla Yahyaie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Reza Ebrahimpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abbas Koochari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reza Ebrahimpour.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the ethical committee of ETH Zurich (EK 2016-N-73) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yahyaie, L., Ebrahimpour, R. & Koochari, A. Pupil Size Variations Reveal Information About Hierarchical Decision-Making Processes. Cogn Comput (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-024-10246-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-024-10246-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation