Captivated by thought: “Sticky” thinking leaves traces of perceptual decoupling in task-evoked pupil size

Abstract

Throughout the day, we may sometimes catch ourselves in patterns of thought that we experience as rigid and difficult to disengage from. Such “sticky” thinking can be highly disruptive to ongoing tasks, and when it turns into rumination constitutes a vulnerability for mental disorders such as depression and anxiety. The main goal of the present study was to explore the stickiness dimension of thought, by investigating how stickiness is reflected in task performance and pupil size. To measure spontaneous thought processes, we asked participants to perform a sustained attention to response task (SART), in which we embedded the participant’s concerns to potentially increase the probability of observing sticky thinking. The results indicated that sticky thinking was most frequently experienced when participants were disengaged from the task. Such episodes of sticky thought could be discriminated from neutral and non-sticky thought by an increase in errors on infrequent no-go trials. Furthermore, we found that sticky thought was associated with smaller pupil responses during correct responding. These results demonstrate that participants can report on the stickiness of their thought, and that stickiness can be investigated using pupillometry. In addition, the results suggest that sticky thought may limit attention and exertion of cognitive control to the task.

Baseline pupil size encodes task-related information and modulates the task-evoked response in a speech-in-noise task

“…The observation of task complexity influencing pre-task baselines is consistent with previous studies (e.g., Ganea et al, 2020 ; Irons et al, 2017 ; Mosaly et al, 2017 ; Steiner & Barry, 2011 ) that found similar effects for a broad range of cognitive tasks. Steinhauer and colleagues linked the elevated baselines for difficult tasks with differential preparation and processing ( Steinhauer et al, 2004 ).…”

“…Second, task complexity might play a role on the relationship between baseline activation and TEPR. Mosaly et al (2017) showed that different relations between baseline and TEPR exist for tasks that have variable loads, such as those measured in, e.g., Kahneman & Beatty (1967) ; Beatty (1982a) , and tasks with sustained challenging conditions (e.g., Gilzenrat et al, 2010 ; Peysakhovich et al, 2017 ). The task considered in the present study of speech understanding in noise is complex and, therefore, it follows that it results in a relation between baseline and TEPR.…”

“…However, less is known about whether changes in the baseline values might also arise due to task-related parameters, such as mental demand. Several studies showed no evidence of these effects (e.g., Granholm et al, 1996 ; Trani & Verhaeghen, 2018 ) while others showed changes in pre-task baselines correlated with task complexity (e.g., Irons et al, 2017 ; Mosaly et al, 2017 ; Steiner & Barry, 2011 ).…”

The steady state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) tracks “sticky” thinking, but not more general mind-wandering

“…Mind-wandering state has also been linked with a smaller pupil response relative to when the person was on-task (Mittner et al, 2014 ; Unsworth and Robison, 2016 ; Konishi et al, 2017 ). Moreover, we have previously shown that when thoughts are considered to be difficult to disengage from by the participant, they are accompanied by greater reductions in pupil size compared to when they are easier to disengage from (Huijser et al, 2020 ).…”

“…These brain oscillations have been found to some what correlated with DMN activation observed in fMRI studies (Mantini et al, 2007 ; Hlinka et al, 2010 ; Jann et al, 2010 ). It is worth noting that there is to our knowledge no data yet on the electrophysiological changes (including the ERPs and brain oscillations) caused by the sticky form of spontaneous thoughts, despite the behavioral and ocular evidence of increased sensory decoupling when the thoughts are more sticky compared to those which are less sticky (Huijser et al, 2020 ).…”