Pupil diameter tracked during motor adaptation in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Pupil diameter, under constant illumination, is known to reflect individuals’ internal states, such as surprise about observation and environmental uncertainty. Despite the growing use of pupillometry in cognitive learning studies as an additional measure for examining internal states, few studies have used pupillometry in human motor learning studies. Here we provide the first detailed characterization of pupil diameter changes in a short-term reach adaptation paradigm. We measured pupil changes in 91 human participants while they adapted to abrupt, gradual, or switching force field conditions. Sudden increases in movement error caused by the introduction/reversal of the force field resulted in strong phasic pupil dilation during movement accompanied by a transient increase in tonic pre-movement baseline pupil diameter in subsequent trials. In contrast, clear changes in pupil responses were absent when the force field was gradually introduced, indicating that error drove the changes in pupil responses. Nevertheless, we found an association between baseline pupil diameter and awareness of the gradually-introduced perturbation assessed post-experimentally. In all experiments, we also found a strong co-occurrence of larger baseline pupil diameter and slower reaction and movement time after each set break. Interestingly, error-induced pupil responses gradually became insensitive after experiencing multiple reversals. Collectively, these results suggest that tonic baseline pupil diameter reflects one’s belief about environmental uncertainty, whereas phasic pupil dilation during movement reflects surprise about a sensory outcome (i.e., movement error), and both effects are modulated by novelty. Our results provide a new approach for non-verbally assessing participants’ internal states during motor learning.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".