Loading…

Comparing methods for the analysis of pupillary response

Changes in eye-pupil size index a range of cognitive processes. However, variations in the protocols used to analyze such data exist in the psychological literature. This raises the question of whether different approaches to pupillary response data influence the outcome of the analysis. To address...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Behavior research methods 2019-02, Vol.51 (1), p.83-95
Main Authors: Attard-Johnson, Janice, Ó Ciardha, Caoilte, Bindemann, Markus
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c603t-3afbe8733394f797c1b1a55a617fdb3064f5bafd86d2a8c947c8b382131071743
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c603t-3afbe8733394f797c1b1a55a617fdb3064f5bafd86d2a8c947c8b382131071743
container_end_page 95
container_issue 1
container_start_page 83
container_title Behavior research methods
container_volume 51
creator Attard-Johnson, Janice
Ó Ciardha, Caoilte
Bindemann, Markus
description Changes in eye-pupil size index a range of cognitive processes. However, variations in the protocols used to analyze such data exist in the psychological literature. This raises the question of whether different approaches to pupillary response data influence the outcome of the analysis. To address this question, four methods of analysis were compared, using pupillary responses to sexually appetitive visual content as example data. These methods comprised analysis of the unadjusted (raw) pupillary response data, z-scored data, percentage-change data, and data transformed by a prestimulus baseline correction . Across two experiments, these methods yielded near-identical outcomes, leading to similar conclusions. This suggests that the range of approaches that are employed in the psychological literature to analyze pupillary response data do not fundamentally influence the outcome of the analysis. However, some systematic carryover effects were observed when a prestimulus baseline correction was applied, whereby dilation effects from an arousing target on one trial still influenced pupil size on the next trial. This indicates that the appropriate application of this analysis might require additional information, such as prior knowledge of the duration of carryover effects.
doi_str_mv 10.3758/s13428-018-1108-6
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6420434</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2191864376</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c603t-3afbe8733394f797c1b1a55a617fdb3064f5bafd86d2a8c947c8b382131071743</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kctKxDAUhoMojo4-gBspuHFTzcl9NoIM3mDAja5D2iYzlbapSSvM29sy43gBVwnkO3_OOR9CZ4CvqOTqOgJlRKUYVAqAVSr20BFwzlLKidr_cZ-g4xjfMKaKADtEE4opYVywI6Tmvm5NKJtlUttu5YuYOB-SbmUT05hqHcuYeJe0fVtWlQnrJNjY-ibaE3TgTBXt6facotf7u5f5Y7p4fnia3y7SXGDapdS4zCpJKZ0xJ2cyhwwM50aAdEVGsWCOZ8YVShTEqHzGZK6ysU0KWIJkdIpuNrltn9W2yG3TBVPpNpT10I72ptS_X5pypZf-QwtGMKNjwOU2IPj33sZO12XM7TBNY30fNQGCJeeAyYBe_EHffB-GNYzUDJRgVIqBgg2VBx9jsG7XDGA9etEbL3rwokcveqw5_znFruJLxACQDRDbUYYN31__n_oJq1GYBA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2191864376</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing methods for the analysis of pupillary response</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Attard-Johnson, Janice ; Ó Ciardha, Caoilte ; Bindemann, Markus</creator><creatorcontrib>Attard-Johnson, Janice ; Ó Ciardha, Caoilte ; Bindemann, Markus</creatorcontrib><description>Changes in eye-pupil size index a range of cognitive processes. However, variations in the protocols used to analyze such data exist in the psychological literature. This raises the question of whether different approaches to pupillary response data influence the outcome of the analysis. To address this question, four methods of analysis were compared, using pupillary responses to sexually appetitive visual content as example data. These methods comprised analysis of the unadjusted (raw) pupillary response data, z-scored data, percentage-change data, and data transformed by a prestimulus baseline correction . Across two experiments, these methods yielded near-identical outcomes, leading to similar conclusions. This suggests that the range of approaches that are employed in the psychological literature to analyze pupillary response data do not fundamentally influence the outcome of the analysis. However, some systematic carryover effects were observed when a prestimulus baseline correction was applied, whereby dilation effects from an arousing target on one trial still influenced pupil size on the next trial. This indicates that the appropriate application of this analysis might require additional information, such as prior knowledge of the duration of carryover effects.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1554-3528</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1554-351X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1554-3528</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3758/s13428-018-1108-6</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30324564</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology ; Cognitive ability ; Cognitive Psychology ; Data processing ; Psychology ; Pupil size ; Response data analysis</subject><ispartof>Behavior research methods, 2019-02, Vol.51 (1), p.83-95</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2018</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Nature B.V. 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c603t-3afbe8733394f797c1b1a55a617fdb3064f5bafd86d2a8c947c8b382131071743</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c603t-3afbe8733394f797c1b1a55a617fdb3064f5bafd86d2a8c947c8b382131071743</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30324564$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Attard-Johnson, Janice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ó Ciardha, Caoilte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bindemann, Markus</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing methods for the analysis of pupillary response</title><title>Behavior research methods</title><addtitle>Behav Res</addtitle><addtitle>Behav Res Methods</addtitle><description>Changes in eye-pupil size index a range of cognitive processes. However, variations in the protocols used to analyze such data exist in the psychological literature. This raises the question of whether different approaches to pupillary response data influence the outcome of the analysis. To address this question, four methods of analysis were compared, using pupillary responses to sexually appetitive visual content as example data. These methods comprised analysis of the unadjusted (raw) pupillary response data, z-scored data, percentage-change data, and data transformed by a prestimulus baseline correction . Across two experiments, these methods yielded near-identical outcomes, leading to similar conclusions. This suggests that the range of approaches that are employed in the psychological literature to analyze pupillary response data do not fundamentally influence the outcome of the analysis. However, some systematic carryover effects were observed when a prestimulus baseline correction was applied, whereby dilation effects from an arousing target on one trial still influenced pupil size on the next trial. This indicates that the appropriate application of this analysis might require additional information, such as prior knowledge of the duration of carryover effects.</description><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>Cognitive Psychology</subject><subject>Data processing</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Pupil size</subject><subject>Response data analysis</subject><issn>1554-3528</issn><issn>1554-351X</issn><issn>1554-3528</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kctKxDAUhoMojo4-gBspuHFTzcl9NoIM3mDAja5D2iYzlbapSSvM29sy43gBVwnkO3_OOR9CZ4CvqOTqOgJlRKUYVAqAVSr20BFwzlLKidr_cZ-g4xjfMKaKADtEE4opYVywI6Tmvm5NKJtlUttu5YuYOB-SbmUT05hqHcuYeJe0fVtWlQnrJNjY-ibaE3TgTBXt6facotf7u5f5Y7p4fnia3y7SXGDapdS4zCpJKZ0xJ2cyhwwM50aAdEVGsWCOZ8YVShTEqHzGZK6ysU0KWIJkdIpuNrltn9W2yG3TBVPpNpT10I72ptS_X5pypZf-QwtGMKNjwOU2IPj33sZO12XM7TBNY30fNQGCJeeAyYBe_EHffB-GNYzUDJRgVIqBgg2VBx9jsG7XDGA9etEbL3rwokcveqw5_znFruJLxACQDRDbUYYN31__n_oJq1GYBA</recordid><startdate>20190215</startdate><enddate>20190215</enddate><creator>Attard-Johnson, Janice</creator><creator>Ó Ciardha, Caoilte</creator><creator>Bindemann, Markus</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190215</creationdate><title>Comparing methods for the analysis of pupillary response</title><author>Attard-Johnson, Janice ; Ó Ciardha, Caoilte ; Bindemann, Markus</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c603t-3afbe8733394f797c1b1a55a617fdb3064f5bafd86d2a8c947c8b382131071743</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Behavioral Science and Psychology</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>Cognitive Psychology</topic><topic>Data processing</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Pupil size</topic><topic>Response data analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Attard-Johnson, Janice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ó Ciardha, Caoilte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bindemann, Markus</creatorcontrib><collection>SpringerOpen</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Behavior research methods</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Attard-Johnson, Janice</au><au>Ó Ciardha, Caoilte</au><au>Bindemann, Markus</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing methods for the analysis of pupillary response</atitle><jtitle>Behavior research methods</jtitle><stitle>Behav Res</stitle><addtitle>Behav Res Methods</addtitle><date>2019-02-15</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>83</spage><epage>95</epage><pages>83-95</pages><issn>1554-3528</issn><issn>1554-351X</issn><eissn>1554-3528</eissn><abstract>Changes in eye-pupil size index a range of cognitive processes. However, variations in the protocols used to analyze such data exist in the psychological literature. This raises the question of whether different approaches to pupillary response data influence the outcome of the analysis. To address this question, four methods of analysis were compared, using pupillary responses to sexually appetitive visual content as example data. These methods comprised analysis of the unadjusted (raw) pupillary response data, z-scored data, percentage-change data, and data transformed by a prestimulus baseline correction . Across two experiments, these methods yielded near-identical outcomes, leading to similar conclusions. This suggests that the range of approaches that are employed in the psychological literature to analyze pupillary response data do not fundamentally influence the outcome of the analysis. However, some systematic carryover effects were observed when a prestimulus baseline correction was applied, whereby dilation effects from an arousing target on one trial still influenced pupil size on the next trial. This indicates that the appropriate application of this analysis might require additional information, such as prior knowledge of the duration of carryover effects.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>30324564</pmid><doi>10.3758/s13428-018-1108-6</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1554-3528
ispartof Behavior research methods, 2019-02, Vol.51 (1), p.83-95
issn 1554-3528
1554-351X
1554-3528
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6420434
source Springer Nature
subjects Behavioral Science and Psychology
Cognitive ability
Cognitive Psychology
Data processing
Psychology
Pupil size
Response data analysis
title Comparing methods for the analysis of pupillary response
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T19%3A41%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20methods%20for%20the%20analysis%20of%20pupillary%20response&rft.jtitle=Behavior%20research%20methods&rft.au=Attard-Johnson,%20Janice&rft.date=2019-02-15&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=83&rft.epage=95&rft.pages=83-95&rft.issn=1554-3528&rft.eissn=1554-3528&rft_id=info:doi/10.3758/s13428-018-1108-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2191864376%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c603t-3afbe8733394f797c1b1a55a617fdb3064f5bafd86d2a8c947c8b382131071743%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2191864376&rft_id=info:pmid/30324564&rfr_iscdi=true