Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When does an easy task become hard? A systematic review of human task-evoked pupillary dynamics versus cognitive efforts

  • Review
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The amount of working memory recourses available (or required) to process a cognitive task (easy or hard) represents human cognitive effort. Working memory resources (visual or auditory) and cognitive efforts are interconnected with visual or auditory pathways. In this review, various facets of pupillary dynamics literature are compared in order to determine an optimal method of cognitive effort assessment. Some key categorical areas of interest are identified including the presented stimulus, observed response, comparisons and different methods of analysis. In details review, a set of predetermined evaluation criteria were used and a decision matrix is developed to outline the best practice in papillary dynamics. Based on the summery table in the form of the decision matrix, a quantitative model with artificial neural network (ANN) is selected for a best practice of cognitive effort estimation. The mental multiplication task is found an effective stimulus (cognitive task) to evoke the pupillary response for various level of task difficulty. In most cases, aural and visual are considered as two presentation modes, two sensory inputs, and two mental resources and greatly imparts in cognitive workload. Through this review, it is also explored that, linking together by transfer and error functions, a combination of an ANN and a multinomial processing tree can used in cognitive effort analysis. This research direction can further explored to estimate the relationship between cognitive task and cognitive effort, to facilitate in technology development for neurological disorders, such as narcolepsy, on the neural pathways involved in cognitive processing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bandura A (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am Psychol 37:122–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Benbadis S (2013) EEG Artifacts. Retrieved from http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1140247-overview

  3. Bergamin O (2002) Latency of the pupillary light reflex: sample rate, stimulus intensity, and variation in normal subjects. Investig Opthalmol Vis Sci 4:1546–1554

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bishara A, Payne K (2008) Multinomial processing tree models of control and automacy in weapon misidentification. J Exp Soc Psychol 45:524–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Block J (2014) Your guide to medical imaging equipment. Retrieved from http://info.blockimaging.com/bid/92623/MRI-Machine-Cost-and-Price-Guide

  6. Bouret B, Sara S (2005) Network reset: a simplified overarching theory of locus coeruleus noradrenaline function. Trends Neurosci 11:574–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chapter 10: Power Spectral Density (2010). Retrieved from http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-011-Introduction-to-communication-control-and-signal-processing-spring-2010/readings/MIT6_011S10_chap10.pdf

  8. Chen J, Magdon-Ismail M (2006) NNOPT: neural network for option pricing using multinomial processing tree. Lect Notes Comput Sci 4234:360–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Craik FIM, Lockhart P (1972) Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 11:671–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. de Gee J, Knapen T, Donner T (2014) Decision-related pupil dilation reflects upcoming choice and individual bias. Proc Natl Acad Sci (PNAS) 111:E618–E625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. de Lacey (2012) Signal artifact: intrinsic, extrinsic, or pathological. Retrieved from http://www.esst.org/Signal%20Artifact%20%20Intrinsic%20Extrinsic%20or%20Pathalogical.pdf

  12. DIY EEG (and ECG) Circuit (2013). Retrieved from http://www.instructables.com/id/DIY-EEG-and-ECG-Circuit

  13. Einhäuser W, Stout J, Koch C, Carter O (2008) Pupil dilations reflects perceptual selection and predicts subsequent stability in perceptual rivalry. Proc Natl Acad Sci (PNAS) 105:1704–1709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Eldar E, Cohen J, Niv Y (2013) The effects of neural gain on attention and learning. Nat Neurosci 16:1146–1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Event-Related Potentials p300 (2005). Retrieved from http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Event-related_potentials_p300

  16. Goncalves S (2011) Artifacts in MRI: identification, explanation, solution. Retrieved from http://www.huc.min-saude.pt/imagiologia/curso_fisica_RM/MRI_Course_Artifacts.pdf

  17. Griffiths T, Kalish M (2001) A multidimensional scaling approach to mental multiplication. Mem Cogn 1:97–106

    Google Scholar 

  18. Guthrie D, Buchwald J (1991) Significance testing of difference potentials. Psychophysiology 2:240–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Henry JD et al (2015) Recent trends in testing social cognition. Curr Opin Psychiatry 28(2):133–140

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hogervorst MA, Brouwer A-M, van Erp JBF (2014) Combining and comparing EEG, peripheral physiology and eye-related measures for the assessment of mental workload. Front Neurosci 8:322. doi:10.3389/fnins.2014.00322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jepma M, Nieuwenhuis S (2011) Pupil diameter predicts changes exploration-exploitation trade-off: evidence for the adaptive gain theory. J Cogn Neurosci 7:1587–1596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kahneman D (1973) Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kirchner PA, Kirchner F (2012) Mental effort. In: Seel NM (ed) Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. Springer, New York, pp 2182–2184

    Google Scholar 

  24. Klingner J (2010) Measuring cognitive load during visual tasks by combining pupilometry and eye tracking. Dissertation, Stanford University. Retrieved from http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/klingner-dissertation

  25. Klingner J, Tversky B, Hanrahan P (2011) Effects of visual and verbal presentation on cognitive load in vigilance, memory, and arithmetic tasks. Psychophysiology 3:323–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Koelewijn T, de Kluiver H, Shinn-Cunningham BG, Zekveld AA, Kramer SE (2015) The pupil response reveals increased listening effort when it is difficult to focus attention. Hear Res 323:81–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kremen WS, Granholm E, Panizzon M, Franz C, Hauger R, Jak AJ, Liu W, Xian H, Lyons M et al (2015) Pupil dilation during a cognitive task: a psychophysiological biomarker differentiating early MCI and normal cognitive function. Alzheimer’s Dement J Alzheimer’s Assoc 11(7):P647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Liu P (2012) Introduction to permutation tests. Retrieved from http://streaming.stat.iastate.edu/~stat416/LectureNotes/11%20Permutation%20Test%203_1_12.pdf

  29. Mele M, Federici S, Dennis J (2014) Believing is seeing: fixation duration predicts implicit negative attitudes. PLoS ONE 8:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nowak W, Hachol A, Kasprzak H (2008) Time-frequency analysis of spontaneous fluctuations of the pupil size of the human eye. Opt Appl 2:469–480

    Google Scholar 

  31. O’Neill W, Trick K (2001) The narcoleptic cognitive pupillary response. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 9:963–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ohtsuka K, Asakura K, Kawasaki H (1988) Respiratory fluctuation of the human pupil. Exp Brain Res 1:215–217

    Google Scholar 

  33. Prices (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.arringtonresearch.com/prices.html

  34. Privitera C, Renninger L, Carney T, Klein S, Aguilar M (2010) Pupil dilation during visual target detection. J Vis 10:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. R P (2014) Selecting an EEG device. Retrieved from http://scienceforthemasses.org/2014/04/11/selecting-an-eeg-device

  36. Salomon G (1984) Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: the differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. J Educ Psychol 76(647):658

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sensi F, Calcagnini G, De Pasquale F (1999) Baroreceptor-sensitive fluctuations of human pupil diameter. Comput Cardiol 1:233–236

    Google Scholar 

  38. Singmann H, Kellen D (2013) MPTinR: analysis of multinomial processing trees in R. Behav Res Methods 2:560–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Stergiou C, Siganos D (1996) Neural networks. Retrieved from http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol4/cs11/report.html

  40. Sur S (2009) Event-related potential: an overview. Ind Psychiatry J 1:70–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Tromp J, Hagoort P, Meyer AS (2016) Pupillometry reveals increased pupil size during indirect request comprehension. Q J Exp Psychol 69(6):1093–1108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Van de Moortele F (1997) Latencies in MRI time-series. Effects and slice acquisition perception. NMR Biomed 10:230–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Weiss MW, Trehub SE, Schellenberg EG, Habashi P (2016) Pupils dilate for vocal or familiar music. J Exp Psychol Hum Percep Perform 42(8):1061–1065. doi:10.1037/xhp0000226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Westbrook A, Braver TS (2015) Cognitive effort: a neuroeconomic approach. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 15(2):395–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. What is fMRI? (2014) Retrieved from http://fmri.ucsd.edu/Research/whatisfmri.html

  46. Weisstein E (n.d.) Necker cube. Retrieved from http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NeckerCube.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Frank H. Dotterweich College of Engineering, Texas A&M University, MSC 192, 700 University Blvd., Kingsville, TX, 78363, USA

    Gahangir Hossain

  2. Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Joshua Elkins

Authors
  1. Gahangir Hossain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joshua Elkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gahangir Hossain.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hossain, G., Elkins, J. When does an easy task become hard? A systematic review of human task-evoked pupillary dynamics versus cognitive efforts. Neural Comput & Applic 30, 29–43 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2750-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2750-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation