Comparing Pupil Light Response Modulation between Saccade Planning and Working Memory
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The signature of spatial attention effects has been demonstrated through saccade planning and working memory. Although saccade planning and working memory have been commonly linked to attention, the comparison of effects resulting from saccade planning and working memory is less explored. It has recently been shown that spatial attention interacts with local luminance at the attended location. When bright and dark patch stimuli are presented simultaneously in the periphery, thereby producing no change in global luminance, pupil size is nonetheless smaller when the locus of attention overlaps with the bright, compared to the dark patch stimulus (referred to as the local luminance modulation). Here, we used the local luminance modulation to directly compare the effects of saccade planning and spatial working memory. Participants were required to make a saccade towards a visual target location (visual-delay) or a remembered target location (memory-delay) after a variable delay, and the bright and dark patch stimuli were presented during the delay period between target onset and go signal. Greater pupil constriction was observed when the bright patch, compared to the dark patch, was spatially aligned with the target location in both tasks. However, the effects were diminished when there was no contingency implemented between the patch and target locations, particularly in the memory-delay task. Together, our results suggest the involvement of similar, but not identical, attentional mechanisms through saccade planning and working memory, and highlight a promising potential of local pupil luminance responses for probing visuospatial processing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it