Moritz Stolte

The human pupil changes size in response to processing demands or cognitive (work)load and emotional processing. Therefore, it is important to test if automatic tracking of cognitive load by pupil-size measurement is possible under conditions of varying levels of emotion-related processing. Here, we investigated this question in an experiment simulating a highly relevant applied context in which cognitive load and emotional processing can vary independently: a clinical interview. Our participants conducted a live clinical interview via computer monitor with a confederate as an interviewee. We used eye-tracking and automatic extraction of participants’ pupil size to monitor cognitive load (single vs. dual tasks, between participants), while orthogonally varying the emotional content of the interviewee’s answers (neutral vs. negative, between participants). We ensured participants’ processing of the verbal content of the interview by asking all participants to report on the content of the interview in a subsequent memory test and by asking them to discriminate if the answers of the interviewee referred to only herself or to somebody else (too). In the dual-task condition, participants had to monitor additionally if the facial emotional expressions of the interviewee matched the content of her verbal responses. Results showed that pupil-size extraction reliably discriminated between high and low cognitive load, albeit to a lower degree under negative emotional content conditions. This was possible with an algorithmic online measure of cognitive load as well as with a conventional pupil-size measure, providing proof of the external validity of the algorithm/online measure.

Task batteries mimicking user tasks are of high heuristic value. Supposedly, they measure individual human aptitude regarding the task in question. However, less is often known about the underlying mechanisms or functions that account for task performance in such complex batteries. This is also true of the Multi-Attribute Task Battery (MATB-II). The MATB-II is a computer display task. It aims to measure human control operations on a flight console. Using the MATB-II and a visual-search task measure of spatial attention, we tested if capture of spatial attention in a bottom-up or top-down way predicted performance in the MATB-II. This is important to understand for questions such as how to implement warning signals on visual displays in human–computer interaction and for what to practice during training of operating with such displays. To measure visuospatial attention, we used both classical task-performance measures (i.e., reaction times and accuracy) as well as novel unobtrusive real-time pupillometry. The latter was done as pupil size covaries with task demands. A large number of analyses showed that: (1) Top-down attention measured before and after the MATB-II was positively correlated. (2) Test-retest reliability was also given for bottom-up attention, but to a smaller degree. As expected, the two spatial attention measures were also negatively correlated with one another. However, (3) neither of the visuospatial attention measures was significantly correlated with overall MATB-II performance, nor with (4) any of the MATB-II subtask performance measures. The latter was true even if the subtask required visuospatial attention (as in the system monitoring task of the MATB-II). (5) Neither did pupillometry predict MATB-II performance, nor performance in any of the MATB-II’s subtasks. Yet, (6) pupil size discriminated between different stages of subtask performance in system monitoring. This finding indicated that temporal segregation of pupil size measures is necessary for their correct interpretation, and that caution is advised regarding average pupil-size measures of task demands across tasks and time points within tasks. Finally, we observed surprising effects of workload (or cognitive load) manipulation on MATB-II performance itself, namely, better performance under high- rather than low-workload conditions. The latter findings imply that the MATB-II itself poses a number of questions about its underlying rationale, besides allowing occasional usage in more applied research.

Past research suggests a continuity between perception and memory, as reflected in influences of orienting of spatial attention by cues presented after a visual target offset (post-target cues) on target perception. Conducting two experiments, we tested and confirmed this claim. Our study revealed an elevated reliance on post-target cues for target detection with diminishing target visibility, leading to better performance in validly versus invalidly cued trials, indicative of contrast gain. We demonstrated this post-target cueing impact on target perception without a postcue response prompt, meaning that our results truly reflected a continuity between perception and memory rather than a task-specific impact of having to memorize the target due to a response prompt. While previous studies found an improvement in accuracy through valid compared to invalid cues using liminal targets, in Experiment 1, we further showed an influence of attention on participants’ response time by the post-target cues with cues presented away from a clearly visible target. This suggests that visual interactions at the target location provided no better explanation of post-target cueing effects. Our results generalize prior research with liminal targets and confirm the view of a perception–memory continuum so that visual target processing is not shielded against visuospatial orienting of attention elicited by events following the offset of the visual target.

Past research suggests a continuity between perception and memory, as reflected in influences of orienting of spatial attention by cues presented after a visual target offset (post-target cues) on target perception. Conducting two experiments, we tested and confirmed this claim. Our study revealed an elevated reliance on post-target cues for target detection with diminishing target visibility, leading to better performance in validly versus invalidly cued trials, indicative for contrast gain. We demonstrated this post-target cueing impact on target perception without a postcue response prompt, meaning that our results truly reflected a continuity between perception and memory rather than a task-specific impact of having to memorize the target due to a response prompt. We further showed an influence of attention by the post-target cues with cues presented away from a clearly visible target, meaning that visual interactions at the target location provided no better explanation of our results. Our results generalize prior research with liminal targets and confirm the view of a perception-memory continuum, so that visual target processing is not shielded against visuospatial orienting of attention elicited by events following offset of the visual target.

In the current study, we used abrupt‐onset distractors similar and dissimilar in luminance to the target of a smooth pursuit eye‐movement to test if abrupt‐onset distractors capture attention in a top‐down or bottom‐up fashion while the eyes track a moving object. Abrupt onset distractors were presented at different positions relative to the current position of a pursuit target during the closed‐loop phase of smooth pursuit. Across experiments, we varied the duration of the distractors, their motion direction, and task‐relevance. We found that abrupt‐onset distractors decreased the gain of horizontally directed smooth‐pursuit eye‐movements. This effect, however, was independent of the similarity in luminance between distractor and target. In addition, distracting effects on horizontal gain were the same, regardless of the exact duration and position of the distractors, suggesting that capture was relatively unspecific and short‐lived (Experiments 1 and 2). This was different with distractors moving in a vertical direction, perpendicular to the horizontally moving target. In line with past findings, these distractors caused suppression of vertical gain (Experiment 3). Finally, making distractors task‐relevant by asking observers to report distractor positions increased the pursuit gain effect of the distractors. This effect was also independent of target‐distractor similarity (Experiment 4). In conclusion, the results suggest that a strong location signal exerted by the pursuit targets led to very brief and largely location‐unspecific interference through the abrupt onsets and that this interference was bottom‐up, implying that the control of smooth pursuit was independent of other target features besides its motion signal.

Linking arbitrary shapes (e.g., circles, squares, and triangles) to personal labels (e.g., self, friend, or stranger) or reward values (e.g., £18, £6, or £2) results in immediate processing benefits for those stimuli that happen to be associated with the self or high rewards in perceptual matching tasks. Here we further explored how social and reward associations interact with multisensory stimuli by pairing labels and objects with tones (low, medium, and high tones). We also investigated whether self and reward biases persist for multisensory stimuli with the label removed after an association had been made. Both high reward stimuli and those associated with the self, resulted in faster responses and improved discriminability (i.e., higher d’), which persisted for multisensory stimuli even when the labels were removed. However, these self- and reward-biases partly depended on the specific alignment between the physical tones (low, medium, and high) and the conceptual (social or reward) order. Performance for reward associations improved when the endpoints of low or high rewards were paired with low or high tones; meanwhile, for personal associations, there was a benefit when the self was paired with either low or high tones, but there was no effect when the stranger was associated with either endpoint. These results indicate that, unlike reward, social personal associations are not represented along a continuum with two marked endpoints (i.e., self and stranger) but rather with a single reference point (the self vs. other).

Visual motion captures attention, but little is known about the automaticity of these effects. Here, we tested if deviant flicker frequencies, as one form of motion, automatically capture attention. Observers searched for a vertical target among tilted distractors. Prior to the target display, a cue array of sinusoidally modulating (flickering) annuli, each surrounding one location of the subsequent target(-plus-distractors) display was presented for variable durations. Annuli either flickered all at 1 Hz (neutral condition, no-singleton cue), or a single annulus flickered at a unique frequency of 5 Hz, 10 Hz, or 15 Hz. The location of this singleton-frequency cue was uncorrelated with target location. Thus, we could measure benefits (target at cued location) and costs (target ≠ cued location) for cues of different frequencies and durations. The results showed that deviant flicker frequencies capture attention, as we observed benefits and costs, falsifying that nonspatial filtering accounted for the cueing effect. In line with automatic capture, cueing was effective in singleton (Experiment 1) and nonsingleton search tasks (Experiment 2), and is thus not dependent on (“top-down”) singleton detection mode. Moreover, analysis of results ruled out trial-by-trial “swapping” of flicker frequencies from preceding target to subsequent distractor locations. Results also revealed increasing cueing effects with higher cue flicker frequency and longer duration. This indicates a significantly longer period of automatic capture by sinusoidal flicker than the typical inhibition of return observed around 250 ms after the onset of uninformative static or single-transient cues.

Continuously tracking cognitive demands via pupil dilation is a desirable goal for the monitoring and investigation of cognitive performance in applied settings where the exact time point of mental engagement in a task is often unknown. Yet, hitherto no experimentally validated algorithm exists for continuously estimating cognitive demands based on pupil size. Here, we evaluated the performance of a continuously operating algorithm that is agnostic of the onset of the stimuli and derives them by way of retrospectively modeling attentional pulses (i.e., onsets of processing). We compared the performance of this algorithm to a standard analysis of stimulus-locked pupil data. The pupil data were obtained while participants performed visual search (VS) and visual working memory (VWM) tasks with varying cognitive demands. In Experiment 1, VS was performed during the retention interval of the VWM task to assess interactive effects between search and memory load on pupil dilation. In Experiment 2, the tasks were performed separately. The results of the stimulus-locked pupil data demonstrated reliable increases in pupil dilation due to high VWM load. VS difficulty only affected pupil dilation when simultaneous memory demands were low. In the single task condition, increased VS difficulty resulted in increased pupil dilation. Importantly, online modeling of pupil responses was successful on three points. First, there was good correspondence between the modeled and stimulus locked pupil dilations. Second, stimulus onsets could be approximated from the derived attentional pulses to a reasonable extent. Third, cognitive demands could be classified above chance level from the modeled pupil traces in both tasks.

We report a new “now-bias” effect on simple perceptual matching between shapes and labels and examined the relation between this now-bias effec

In their seminal paper ‘Is our self nothing but reward’, Northoff and Hayes (Biol Psychiatry 69(11):1019–1025, Northoff, Hayes, Biological Psychiatry 69(11):1019–1025, 2011) proposed three models of the relationship between self and reward and opened a continuing debate about how these different fields can be linked. To date, none of the proposed models received strong empirical support. The present study tested common and distinct effects of personal relevance and reward values by de-componenting different stages of perceptual decision making using a drift-diffusion approach. We employed a recently developed associative matching paradigm where participants (N = 40) formed mental associations between five geometric shapes and five labels referring personal relevance in the personal task, or five shape-label pairings with different reward values in the reward task and then performed a matching task by indicating whether a displayed shape-label pairing was correct or incorrect. We found that common effects of personal relevance and monetary reward were manifested in the facilitation of behavioural performance for high personal relevance and high reward value as socially important signals. The differential effects between personal and monetary relevance reflected non-decisional time in a perceptual decision process, and task-specific prioritization of stimuli. Our findings support the parallel processing model (Northoff & Hayes, Biol Psychiatry 69(11):1019–1025, Northoff, Hayes, Biological Psychiatry 69(11):1019–1025, 2011) and suggest that self-specific processing occurs in parallel with high reward processing. Limitations and further directions are discussed.