Measuring task set preparation versus mind wandering using pupillometry.

Abstract

We investigated participants’ task set preparation by measuring changes in pupil diameter during a blank interval as they prepared for an easy (i.e., prosaccade) or difficult (i.e., antisaccade) trial. We used occasional thought probes to gauge “on-task” thoughts versus mind wandering. In both studies, participants’ pupil diameters were larger when anticipating an antisaccade, relative to a prosaccade, trial. In contrast, their self-reported mind wandering depended upon whether the thought probes occurred after their target detection response (Experiment 1) or occurred in lieu of target detection (Experiment 2). In the latter case, self-reported mind wandering echoed the pupil diameter changes in demonstrating greater off-task behavior when preparing for a prosaccade trial. More important, trial type effects in pupil diameter emerged only when participants reported being “on-task,” but disappeared during periods of mind wandering. These results demonstrate that changes in pupil diameter reflect the degree of preparatory control exerted for an upcoming trial, but only when attention is actively focused on the upcoming task.

Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports

“…The Schubert et al (2020) findings thus indicate that TUT reports can be somewhat reactive to errors, affecting mean TUT rates, but they don't convincingly demonstrate that mind wandering's associations with other constructs reflect performance reactivity. 2 2 Although Hutchison et al (2020) also appear to have detected performance reactivity in their pupillometry study, the findings are not straightforward.…”

“…However, if antisaccade errors artificially increased TUT reports, then Study 2 should have reduced TUT rates; in fact, TUT rates on antisaccade trials increased slightly, from .41 in Study 1 to .43 in Study 2 (proaccade TUT rates increased from .38 to .48). It is unclear, then, whether the Hutchison et al (2020) findings suggest error reactivity.…”

Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports

“…However, when probes offered only two response options (on-task vs TUT), TUT rates were higher than with 2 Although Hutchison et al (2020) also appear to have detected performance reactivity in their pupillometry study, the findings are not straightforward. Their Study 1 cued subjects on each trial to expect a prosaccade trial (a target appearing in the same location as a cue) or an antisaccade trial (a target appearing in the opposite location as a cue) 500-8000 ms later; probes appeared after target-identification responses.…”

Individual Differences in the Intensity and Consistency of Attention

“…In particular, research suggests that during a lapse of attention, there is a temporary reduction in intensity. For example, as shown in Figure 1, using pupillary responses to track intensity and thought probes to track consistency, we found that when participants reported being off task (in a sustained-attention task), they exhibited much smaller pupillary responses both when waiting for a target to appear (preparatory control) and at target onset, compared with when they reported being fully on task ; see also Hutchison et al, 2020). Similar withinparticipant relations have been demonstrated in longterm memory tasks (Miller & Unsworth, 2021).…”

“…Recently, we have utilized pupillometry, as research has suggested that the pupil dilates in response to the cognitive demands of a task and that pupil dilation is a reliable and valid indicator of intensity (attentional effort; Beatty & Lucero-Wagoner, 2000;Just & Carpenter, 1993;Kahneman, 1973). Recent research has also used fluctuation in pupillary responses as an indicator of the consistency of attention (Hutchison et al, 2020;Unsworth & Robison, 2017a). In addition, consistency can be measured using thought-probe techniques, in which participants are periodically presented with a thought probe asking if their attention is currently on task or off task (i.e., if they are mind wandering, externally distracted, or mind blanking; see Unsworth, Robison, & Miller, 2020, for a review).…”