Pupillary manifolds: uncovering the latent geometrical structures behind phasic changes in pupil size

Abstract The size of the pupils reflects directly the balance of different branches of the autonomic nervous system. This measure is inexpensive, non-invasive, and has provided invaluable insights on a wide range of mental processes, from attention to emotion and executive functions. Two outstanding limitations of current pupillometry research are the lack of consensus in the analytical approaches, which vary wildly across research groups and disciplines, and the fact that, unlike other neuroimaging techniques, pupillometry lacks the dimensionality to shed light on the different sources of the observed effects. In other words, pupillometry provides an integrated readout of several distinct networks, but it is unclear whether each has a specific fingerprint, stemming from its function or physiological substrate. Here we show that phasic changes in pupil size are inherently low-dimensional, with modes that are highly consistent across behavioral tasks of very different nature, suggesting that these changes occur along pupillary manifolds that are highly constrained by the underlying physiological structures rather than functions. These results provide not only a unified approach to analyze pupillary data, but also the opportunity for physiology and psychology to refer to the same processes by tracing the sources of the reported changes in pupil size in the underlying biology

Subitizing but not estimation of numerosity requires attentional resources

The numerosity of small numbers of objects, up to about four, can be rapidly appraised without error, a phenomenon known as subitizing. Larger numbers can either be counted, accurately but slowly, or estimated, rapidly but with errors. There has been some debate as to whether subitizing uses the same or different mechanisms than those of higher numerical ranges and whether it requires attentional resources. We measure subjects' accuracy and precision in making rapid judgments of numerosity for target numbers spanning the subitizing and estimation ranges while manipulating the attentional load, both with a spatial dual task and the "attentional blink" dual-task paradigm. The results of both attentional manipulations were similar. In the high-load attentional condition, Weber fractions were similar in the subitizing (2-4) and estimation (5-7) ranges (10-15%). In the low-load and single-task condition, Weber fractions substantially improved in the subitizing range, becoming nearly error-free, while the estimation range was relatively unaffected. The results show that the mechanisms operating over the subitizing and estimation ranges are not identical. We suggest that pre-attentive estimation mechanisms works at all ranges, but in the subitizing range, attentive mechanisms also come into play