Differentiating global luminance, arousal and cognitive signals on pupil size and microsaccades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pupil size reflects a proxy for neural activity associated with global luminance, arousal and cognitive processing. Microsaccades are also modulated by arousal and cognitive processing. Are these effects of arousal and cognitive signals on pupil size and microsaccades coordinated? If so, via what neural mechanisms? We hypothesized that if pupil size and microsaccades are coordinately modulated by these processes, pupil size immediately before microsaccade onset, as an index for ongoing cognitive and arousal processing, should correlate with microsaccade responses during tasks alternating these signals. Here, we examined the relationship between pupil size and microsaccade responses in tasks that included variations in global luminance, arousal and inhibitory control. Higher microsaccade peak velocities correlated with larger pre-microsaccade pupil response related to arousal and inhibitory control signals. In contrast, pupil responses evoked by global luminance signals did not correlate with microsaccade responses. Given the central role of the superior colliculus in microsaccade generation, these results suggest the critical involvement of the superior colliculus to coordinate pupil and microsaccade responses for arousal and inhibitory control modulations, but not for the pupil luminance modulation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".