Pupil dilation offers a time-window on prediction error
- Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Netherlands
- Department of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg University, Netherlands
- Department of Psychology, Sigmund Freud University, Slovenia
Figures
Figure 1 with 1 supplement
Data set #1: Cue-target 2AFC task and results.
(A) Events during a single trial. While pupil dilation was recorded, participants predicted the orientation (left/right) of the upcoming target (Gabor patch) based on the visual and/or auditory cues (in the data analyzed here, only the visual cue had predictive validity). Predictions were given by a button press with the corresponding finger on the left or right hand. Two mapping conditions (condition 1 or condition 2) were counterbalanced across participants such that a participant in condition 1 was shown the square cue followed by a left-oriented target on 80% of the trials, while the square cue was followed by a right-oriented target on 20% of the trials. A gray box indicates the feedback event of interest. (B) Accuracy (fraction of correct responses) as a function of cue-target frequency. Data points are individual participants; stats, paired-samples Wilcoxon signed-rank t-test. (C) RT as a function of both cue-target frequency and accuracy (error/correct); stats, repeated-measures ANOVA. (D) Feedback-locked pupil response time course, plotted as a function of cue-target frequency and accuracy. Shading represents the standard error of the mean across participants (N = 24) . Light gray boxes, time windows of interest; early time window, [0.75, 1.25]; late time window, [2.5, 3.0]. The black horizontal bar indicates a significant interaction term (cluster-corrected, permutation test). (E) Early time window, average feedback-locked pupil response as a function of cue-target frequency and accuracy; stats, repeated-measures ANOVA. (F) As E, for the late time window. ANOVA results (multiple panels): top, main effect of frequency; middle, main effect of accuracy; bottom, frequency x accuracy interaction. Error bars, standard error of the mean across participants (N = 24). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
-
Figure 1—source data 1
Processed behavioral and pupil data used to generate the main results figure for the cue-target 2AFC task.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-fig1-data1-v1.xlsx
Figure 1—figure supplement 1
Main effects of frequency and accuracy in the feedback-locked pupil time courses from the cue-target 2AFC task.
(A) Mean feedback-locked pupil response across all trials. (B) Feedback-locked pupil response time course plotted as a function of accuracy. (C) Feedback-locked pupil response time course plotted as a function of stimulus-pair frequency. Gray boxes, time windows of interest; early time window, [0.75, 1.25]; late time window, [2.5, 3.0]. Shading represents the standard error of the mean across participants (N = 24) . The black horizontal bars indicate a significant effect of interest (cluster-corrected using permutation tests).
-
Figure 1—figure supplement 1—source data 1
Processed pupil data used to generate the figure supplement showing main effects of frequency and accuracy in the feedback-locked pupil time courses from the cue-target 2AFC task.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-fig1-figsupp1-data1-v1.xlsx
Figure 2 with 1 supplement
Data set #2: Letter-color 2AFC task and results.
(A) Left, an independent learning phase was administered in the form of an odd-ball detection task during which six letters together with six shades of green colors as background (squares) were presented in three frequency conditions (33%, 50%, and 84%) on most trials (91%). Participants had to quickly respond to odd-ball targets (numbers and/or non-green color, 9% of trials). Letter-color mapping conditions were randomized per participant. Right, events during a single trial of the subsequent letter-color decision 2AFC task. While pupil dilation was recorded, participants indicated whether the letter “matched” the colored square with a button press. A match was correct when the letter and color had occurred most often together in the preceding odd-ball task. A gray box indicates the feedback event of interest. (B) Accuracy (fraction of correct responses) as a function of letter-color frequency. Dashed line represents chance level. Data points are individual participants; stats, repeated-measures ANOVA. (C) RT as a function of both letter-color frequency and accuracy; stats, repeated-measures ANOVA. (D) Feedback-locked pupil response time course, plotted as a function of letter-color frequency and accuracy. Shading represents the across participants of the mean (N = 47). Dark gray box, duration of the auditory feedback stimulus (0.3 s). Light gray boxes, time windows of interest; early time window, [0.75, 1.25]; late time window, [2.5, 3.0]. The purple horizontal bar indicates a significant two-way interaction effect (uncorrected for multiple comparisons). No significant time points remained after correction using the false discovery rate (FDR). (E) Early time window, average feedback-locked pupil response as a function of letter-color frequency and accuracy; stats, repeated-measures ANOVA (F) As E, for the late time window. ANOVA results (multiple panels): top, main effect of frequency; middle, main effect of accuracy; bottom, frequency x accuracy interaction. Error bars, standard error of the mean across participants (N = 47). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
-
Figure 2—source data 1
Processed behavioral and pupil data used to generate the main results figure for the letter-color 2AFC task.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-fig2-data1-v1.xlsx
Figure 2—figure supplement 1
Main effects of frequency and accuracy in the feedback-locked pupil time courses from the letter-color 2AFC task.
(A) Mean feedback-locked pupil response across all trials. (B) Feedback-locked pupil response time course plotted as a function of accuracy. (C) Feedback-locked pupil response time course plotted as a function of stimulus-pair frequency. Gray boxes, time windows of interest; early time window, [0.75, 1.25]; late time window, [2.5, 3.0]. Shading represents the standard error of the mean across participants (N = 47). The black horizontal bars indicate a significant effect of interest (panels A and B were cluster-corrected using permutation tests; panel C, a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on each time point and corrected for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate).
-
Figure 2—figure supplement 1—source data 1
Processed pupil data used to generate the figure supplement showing main effects of frequency and accuracy in the feedback-locked pupil time courses from the letter-color 2AFC task.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-fig2-figsupp1-data1-v1.xlsx
Figure 3 with 1 supplement
Correlations between the feedback-locked pupil response time course and the information-theoretic variables.
Left column, results for the cue-target 2AFC task. Right column, results for the letter-color 2AFC task. (A) The information gain, surprise, and entropy parameters are shown as a function of task trial. Model parameter units are in bits. (B) The mean information gain, surprise, and entropy parameters are shown as a function of frequency condition. (C) Average trial-by-trial correlations at the group level between the ideal learner model parameters (information gain, surprise, and entropy) at each time point in the feedback-locked pupil response. (D) Average trial-by-trial correlations at the group level between the information gain parameter and the feedback-locked pupil response separately for the error and correct trials. (E) As D, for the surprise parameter. (F) As D, for the entropy parameter. (G–L) As A-F for the letter-color 2AFC task. (C–L) Shading represents the standard error of the mean across participants (cue-target 2AFC task: N = 24; letter-color 2AFC task: N = 47). Light gray boxes, time windows of interest; early time window, [0.75, 1.25]; late time window, [2.5, 3.0]. The colored horizontal bars indicate time periods of significant correlation coefficients tested against zero for each model parameter or condition of interest (cluster-corrected, permutation test). The black horizontal bar indicates a difference between conditions (cluster-corrected, permutation test).
-
Figure 3—source data 1
Ideal learner model parameters and correlations between the feedback-locked pupil response time course and the information-theoretic variables (both tasks).
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-fig3-data1-v1.xlsx
Figure 3—figure supplement 1
Correlations between the feedback-locked pupil response time course and the information-theoretic variables using a uniform prior distribution in the letter-color 2AFC task.
(A) The information gain, surprise, and entropy parameters are shown as a function of task trial. Model parameter units are in bits. (B) The mean information gain, surprise, and entropy parameters are shown as a function of frequency condition. (C) Average trial-by-trial correlations at the group level between the ideal learner model parameters (information gain, surprise, and entropy) at each time point in the feedback-locked pupil response. (D) Average trial-by-trial correlations at the group level between the information gain parameter and the feedback-locked pupil response separately for the error and correct trials. (E) As D, for the surprise parameter. (F) As D, for the entropy parameter. (C–F) Shading represents the standard error of the mean across participants (N = 47). Gray boxes, time windows of interest; early time window, [0.75, 1.25]; late time window, [2.5, 3.0]. The colored horizontal bars indicate time periods of significant correlation coefficients tested against zero for each model parameter or condition of interest (cluster-corrected, permutation test). No differences between error and correct trials were obtained (cluster-corrected, permutation test).
-
Figure 3—figure supplement 1—source data 1
Ideal learner model parameters and correlations between the feedback-locked pupil response time course and the information-theoretic variables using a uniform prior distribution in the letter-color 2AFC task.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-fig3-figsupp1-data1-v1.xlsx
Appendix 1—figure 1
Individual differences analysis between accuracy and pupil responses.
Top row, cue-target 2AFC task. Bottom row, letter-color 2AFC task. Left column, early time window. Right column, late time window. The average feedback-locked pupil response frequency difference (80–20% and 84–33% frequency conditions for the cue-target and letter-color 2AFC tasks, respectively) is plotted against the frequency difference in accuracy. Data points, individual participants.
-
Appendix 1—figure 1—source data 1
Processed data for the individual differences analysis between accuracy and pupil responses (both tasks).
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-app1-fig1-data1-v1.xlsx
Appendix 3—figure 1
Control tasks for data set #2: letter-color 2AFC task.
Left column, results from the control task for colors. Right column, results from the control task for feedback tones. (A) Mean tone-locked pupil response across all trials. (B) Feedback-locked pupil response time course plotted as a function of color used in the main letter-color 2AFC task (hexadecimal codes are given in the legend). (C) As A, for the control task for feedback tones. (D) Pupil response time courses plotted as a function of feedback tone used for error and correct trials in the main letter-color 2AFC task. All panels, dark gray boxes indicate the duration of the stimuli; 0.7 s, for the colors (group average); 0.3 s, auditory stimulus for the tones. Light gray boxes indicate time windows of interest; early time window, [0.75, 1.25]; late time window, [2.5, 3.0]. Shading represents the standard error of the mean across participants (N = 15). The black and green horizontal bars indicate a significant effect of interest (cluster-corrected, permutation based).
-
Appendix 3—figure 1—source data 1
Processed pupil data used to generate the figures for the analysis of the control tasks related to the letter-color 2AFC task.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-app3-fig1-data1-v1.xlsx
Appendix 4—figure 1
Sanity checks on pupil pre-processing for (A) the cue-target 2AFC task and (B) the letter-color 2AFC task.
All plots, feedback-locked pupil response time course plotted as a function of cue-target frequency and accuracy for different pre-processing stages. Shading represents the standard error of the mean across participants (cue-target 2AFC task: N = 24; letter-color 2AFC task: N = 47). Light gray boxes, time windows of interest; early time window, [0.75, 1.25]; late time window, [2.5, 3.0]. The black horizontal bar indicates a significant interaction term (cluster-corrected, permutation test). Top row, the raw and band-pass filtered pupil signal before interpolation. Second row, the interpolated and band-pass filtered pupil signal but without the nuisance regression. Third row, the fully pre-processed pupil (as in the main results) for the conservative analysis in which only trials containing at least 60% of original (non-interpolated) data were included. Bottom row, the nuisance predictors based on blink and saccade events estimated by deconvolution.
-
Appendix 4—figure 1—source data 1
Processed pupil data used to generate the appendix figure showing the sanity checks of pupil pre-processing figure for both tasks.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-app4-fig1-data1-v1.xlsx
Tables
Table 1
Results of the three-way repeated-measures ANOVA on the feedback-locked pupil response in the cue-target 2AFC task (data set #1).
The three-way repeated-measures ANOVA included factors: time window (levels: early vs. late), frequency (levels: 20% vs. 80%), and accuracy (levels: error vs. correct).
| Factor | F(1,23) | p | η²G |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time window | 7.52 | 0.012 | 0.05 |
| Frequency | 9.79 | 0.005 | 0.04 |
| Accuracy | 2.67 | 0.116 | 0.01 |
| Time window x frequency | 0.25 | 0.621 | <0.01 |
| Time window x accuracy | 0.26 | 0.614 | <0.01 |
| Frequency x accuracy | 3.45 | 0.076 | 0.02 |
| Time window x frequency x accuracy | 24.97 | <0.001 | 0.02 |
-
Table 1—source data 1
Processed behavioral data from the cue-target 2AFC task used for the three-way repeated-measures ANOVA included factors: time window (levels: early vs. late), frequency (levels: 20% vs. 80%), and accuracy (levels: error vs. correct).
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-table1-data1-v1.xlsx
Table 2
Results of the three-way repeated-measures ANOVA on the feedback-locked pupil response in the letter-color 2AFC task (data set #2).
The three-way repeated-measures ANOVA included factors: time window (levels: early vs. late), frequency (levels: 33%, 50%, and 84%), and accuracy (levels: error vs. correct). Greenhouse-Geisser statistics are reported when assumptions of sphericity were violated.
| Factor | df | F | p | η²G |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time window | (1, 46) | 130.16 | <0.001 | 0.23 |
| Frequency | (1.639, 75.415) | 2.11 | 0.137 | 0.01 |
| Accuracy | (1, 46) | 4.76 | 0.034 | 0.01 |
| Time window x frequency | (2, 92) | 0.22 | 0.806 | <0.01 |
| Time window x accuracy | (1, 46) | 61.11 | <0.001 | 0.06 |
| Frequency x accuracy | (1.480, 68.095) | 3.91 | 0.036 | 0.02 |
| Time window x frequency x accuracy | (2, 92) | 1.05 | 0.354 | <0.01 |
-
Table 2—source data 1
Processed behavioral data from the letter-color 2AFC task used for the three-way repeated-measures ANOVA included factors: time window (levels: early vs. late), frequency (levels: 20% vs. 80%), and accuracy (levels: error vs. correct).
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-table2-data1-v1.xlsx
Table 3
Linear mixed model results for the cue-target 2AFC task.
Explanation of abbreviations, rows: I, Shannon surprise predictor variable; H, entropy; DKL, information gain; Baseline, pre-feedback baseline pupil dilation; RT, reaction times. Columns: 95% CI, the 95% credible interval of the median posterior distribution; pd, the probability (in percentage) of direction; ESS, effective sample size; *indicates strong evidence that the parameter has a positive/negative effect on the post-feedback pupil response.
| Cue-target 2AFC task | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Early time window | Late time window | ||||||||||
| Parameter | Median | 95% CI | pd (%) | ESS | Parameter | Median | 95% CI | pd (%) | ESS | ||
| All trials | (Intercept) | –3.06 | [–7.15, 0.93] | 93.45 | 17,486 | All trials | (Intercept) | 1.02 | [–4.42, 6.48] | 64.35 | 23,656 |
| I | 0.56 | [0.41, 0.71]* | 100.00 | 23,950 | I | 0.58 | [0.37, 0.79]* | 100.00 | 30,658 | ||
| H | 1.09 | [–1.23, 3.44] | 82.45 | 18,259 | H | –1.68 | [–4.85, 1.49] | 84.90 | 24,213 | ||
| DKL | –13.13 | [-21.48,–4.84]* | 99.90 | 20,134 | DKL | 0.49 | [–10.83, 11.90] | 53.39 | 29,994 | ||
| Baseline | –0.4 | [-0.42,–0.38]* | 100.00 | 24,410 | Baseline | –0.71 | [-0.74,–0.68]* | 100.00 | 35,733 | ||
| RT | 0.02 | [–0.17, 0.21] | 100.00 | 23,370 | RT | 0.17 | [–0.09, 0.42] | 89.89 | 31,833 | ||
| Parameter | Median | 95% CI | pd (%) | ESS | Parameter | Median | 95% CI | pd (%) | ESS | ||
| Correct trials | (Intercept) | –2.39 | [–7.43, 2.67] | 82.29 | 25,551 | Correct trials | (Intercept) | –2.79 | [–9.75, 4.31] | 78.18 | 25,261 |
| I | 0.57 | [0.21, 0.93]* | 99.91 | 31,617 | I | 0.34 | [–0.16, 0.83] | 90.98 | 29,758 | ||
| H | 0.56 | [–2.42, 3.49] | 64.42 | 26,985 | H | 0.64 | [–3.51, 4.71] | 61.97 | 25,637 | ||
| DKL | –11.97 | [-22.91,–1.20]* | 98.41 | 30,657 | DKL | –6.54 | [–21.36, 8.73] | 79.68 | 31,266 | ||
| Baseline | –0.41 | [-0.43,–0.38]* | 100.00 | 36,828 | Baseline | –0.68 | [-0.72,–0.64]* | 100.00 | 33,299 | ||
| RT | 0.07 | [–0.17, 0.30] | 71.85 | 32,381 | RT | 0.24 | [–0.08, 0.57] | 92.58 | 30,517 | ||
| Parameter | Median | 95% CI | pd (%) | ESS | Parameter | Median | 95% CI | pd (%) | ESS | ||
| Error trials | (Intercept) | –0.79 | [–8.01, 6.16] | 58.84 | 20,239 | Error trials | (Intercept) | 8.23 | [–0.33, 16.79] | 96.97 | 26,770 |
| I | –0.04 | [–0.27, 0.19] | 63.10 | 28,734 | I | 0.27 | [–0.01, 0.56] | 97.01 | 32,348 | ||
| H | 1.06 | [–2.87, 5.13] | 69.95 | 21,448 | H | –5.15 | [-9.99,–0.28]* | 98.09 | 26,886 | ||
| DKL | –18.52 | [-31.55,–5.56]* | 99.71 | 26,800 | DKL | 11.38 | [–4.68, 27.60] | 91.88 | 31,452 | ||
| Baseline | –0.41 | [-0.44,–0.37]* | 100.00 | 28,102 | Baseline | –0.79 | [-0.83,–0.74]* | 100.00 | 30,943 | ||
| RT | –0.24 | [–0.56, 0.07] | 93.27 | 28,149 | RT | –0.02 | [–0.40, 0.38] | 52.89 | 33,367 | ||
-
Table 3—source data 1
Processed data input into the linear mixed modeling analysis for the cue-target 2AFC task.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-table3-data1-v1.xlsx
Table 4
Linear mixed model results for the letter-color 2AFC task.
Explanation of abbreviations, rows: I, Shannon surprise predictor variable; H, entropy; DKL, information gain; Baseline, pre-feedback baseline pupil dilation; RT, reaction times. Columns: 95% CI, the 95% credible interval of the median posterior distribution; pd, the probability (in percentage) of direction; ESS, effective sample size; *indicates strong evidence that the parameter has a positive/negative effect on the post-feedback pupil response.
| Letter-color 2AFC task | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Early time window | Late time window | ||||||||||
| Parameter | Median | 95% CI | pd (%) | ESS | Parameter | Median | 95% CI | pd (%) | ESS | ||
| All trials | (Intercept) | 22.1 | [13.21, 30.86]* | 100.00 | 26,356 | All trials | (Intercept) | –3.06 | [–15.23, 9.09] | 69.53 | 22,915 |
| I | –0.02 | [–0.13, 0.09] | 64.55 | 34,055 | I | 0.09 | [–0.06, 0.24] | 87.28 | 26,755 | ||
| H | –4.5 | [-6.40,–2.58]* | 100.00 | 25,959 | H | 0.59 | [–2.03, 3.23] | 67.52 | 23,997 | ||
| DKL | 60.07 | [39.51, 80.87]* | 100.00 | 26,249 | DKL | –24.32 | [–53.07, 4.56] | 95.10 | 33,991 | ||
| Baseline | –0.26 | [-0.27,–0.24]* | 100.00 | 44,190 | Baseline | –0.58 | [−0.60,–0.56]* | 100.00 | 26,963 | ||
| RT | 1.46 | [1.03, 1.90]* | 100.00 | 47,747 | RT | –0.16 | [–0.75, 0.42] | 70.89 | 30,625 | ||
| Parameter | Median | 95% CI | pd (%) | ESS | Parameter | Median | 95% CI | pd (%) | ESS | ||
| Correct trials | (Intercept) | 14.94 | [4.81, 25.11]* | 99.80 | 24,140 | Correct trials | (Intercept) | –4.35 | [–18.46, 9.70] | 72.67 | 19,889 |
| I | 5.15e-03 | [–0.12, 0.13] | 53.31 | 30,199 | I | 0.14 | [–0.04, 0.31] | 93.99 | 21,789 | ||
| H | –3.05 | [-5.25,–0.87]* | 99.72 | 23,801 | H | 0.8 | [–2.24, 3.85] | 69.60 | 19,607 | ||
| DKL | 50.58 | [24.08, 77.54]* | 100.00 | 25,756 | DKL | –32.31 | [–69.66, 5.65] | 95.47 | 19,778 | ||
| Baseline | –2.6 | [-0.27,–0.24]* | 100.00 | 37,674 | Baseline | –0.57 | [−0.58,–0.55]* | 100.00 | 27,486 | ||
| RT | 1.36 | [0.86, 1.87]* | 100.00 | 28,719 | RT | –0.2 | [–0.90, 0.49] | 72.05 | 23,635 | ||
| Parameter | Median | 95% CI | pd (%) | ESS | Parameter | Median | 95% CI | pd (%) | ESS | ||
| Error trials | (Intercept) | 15.37 | [–2.50, 33.00] | 95.54 | 27,183 | Error trials | (Intercept) | –11.89 | [–35.13, 10.58] | 84.82 | 23,997 |
| I | –0.22 | [–0.46, 0.02] | 96.50 | 32,906 | I | –0.14 | [–0.47, 0.17] | 81.38 | 28,603 | ||
| H | –1.84 | [–5.71, 2.03] | 82.42 | 26,618 | H | 3.12 | [–1.79, 8.22] | 89.03 | 23,597 | ||
| DKL | 43.74 | [11.29, 76.03]* | 99.63 | 25,265 | DKL | –22.82 | [–65.81, 20.46] | 85.06 | 25,965 | ||
| Baseline | –0.29 | [-0.32,–0.26]* | 100.00 | 38,565 | Baseline | –0.68 | [−0.72,–0.65]* | 100.00 | 32,302 | ||
| RT | –0.59 | [–1.44, 0.25] | 91.18 | 30,075 | RT | –0.65 | [–1.79, 0.48] | 87.33 | 31,779 | ||
-
Table 4—source data 1
Processed data input into the linear mixed modeling analysis for the letter-color 2AFC task.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-table4-data1-v1.xlsx
Appendix 2—table 1
Linear mixed model comparisons for the cue-target 2AFC task.
| Cue-target 2AFC task | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Early time window | |||||||
| Model | ELPD loo (SE) | p loo (SE) | looic (SE) | △ELPD | △SE | |△ELPD|/△SE | |
| All trials | 1 | –13596.9 (77) | 30.3 (1.3) | 27195.5 (154) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2 | –13598.5 (77) | 31.0 (1.3) | 27197.1 (154) | –0.8 | 0.4 | 2.0 | |
| Correct trials | 1 | –9499.1 (68.7) | 29.7 (1.7) | 18998.3 (137.3) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2 | –9499.0 (68.7) | 30.0 (1.7) | 18998.1 (137.3) | –0.1 | 1 | 0.1 | |
| Error trials | 2 | –4069.5 (35.1) | 29.8 (1.7) | 8139.1 (70.3) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 1 | –4070.4 (35.2) | 28.8 (1.7) | 8140.8 (70.4) | –0.9 | 1.9 | 0.5 | |
| Late time window | |||||||
| Model | ELPD loo (SE) | p loo (SE) | looic (SE) | △ELPD | △SE | |△ELPD|/△SE | |
| All trials | 1 | –14983.7 (67.7) | 29.7 (1.1) | 29967.4 (135.5) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2 | –14984.7 (67.7) | 29.7 (1.1) | 29969.4 (135.5) | –1.0 | 0.3 | 3.3 | |
| Correct trials | 1 | –10575.0 (57.1) | 27.7 (1.2) | 21150.1 (114.3) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2 | –10575.8 (57.2) | 29.0 (1.3) | 21151.5 (114.3) | –0.7 | 1.2 | 0.6 | |
| Error trials | 2 | –4363.2 (33.3) | 27.1 (1.4) | 8726.3 (66.6) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 1 | –4364.0 (33.4) | 26.7 (1.4) | 8728.0 (66.7) | –0.8 | 1.3 | 0.6 | |
-
Appendix 2—table 1—source data 1
Processed data input into the linear mixed modeling analysis for the cue-target 2AFC task.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-app2-table1-data1-v1.xlsx
Appendix 2—table 2
Linear mixed model comparisons for the letter-color 2AFC task.
| Letter-color 2AFC task | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Early time window | |||||||
| Model | ELPD loo (SE) | p loo (SE) | looic (SE) | △ELPD | △SE | |△ELPD|/△SE | |
| All trials | 1 | –39805.3 (104.8) | 48.7 (1.1) | 79610.7 (209.6) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2 | –39805.7 (104.8) | 49.3 (1.1) | 79611.4 (209.6) | –0.4 | 0.7 | 0.6 | |
| Correct trials | 1 | –32665.1 (95.8) | 45.1 (1.2) | 65330.2 (191.5) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2 | –32666.0 (95.8) | 45.9 (1.2) | 65331.9 (191.5) | –0.9 | 0.2 | 4.5 | |
| Error trials | 2 | –7024.7 (41.2) | 47.4 (2.4) | 14049.5 (82.4) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 1 | –7025.6 (41.3) | 46.4 (2.4) | 14051.3 (82.6) | –0.9 | 1.8 | 0.5 | |
| Late time window | |||||||
| Model | ELPD loo (SE) | p loo (SE) | looic (SE) | △ELPD | △SE | |△ELPD|/△SE | |
| All trials | 1 | –43351.0 (110.0) | 43.7 (1.0) | 86701.9 (220.0) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2 | –43351.5 (110.0) | 44.4 (1.0) | 86703.0 (220.1) | –0.5 | 0.7 | 0.7 | |
| Correct trials | 1 | –35663.4 (97.0) | 40.9 (1.0) | 71326.8 (194.0) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2 | –35664.2 (97.0) | 41.8 (1.0) | 71328.4 (194.0) | –0.8 | 0.5 | 1.6 | |
| Error trials | 1 | –7628.3 (51.2) | 41.2 (2.8) | 15256.6 (102.5) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 2 | –7628.7 (51.3) | 41.9 (2.8) | 15257.4 (102.6) | –0.4 | 0.7 | 0.6 | |
-
Appendix 2—table 2—source data 1
Processed data input into the linear mixed modeling analysis for the letter-color 2AFC task.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-app2-table2-data1-v1.xlsx
Additional files
-
MDAR checklist
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-mdarchecklist1-v1.docx
-
Appendix 1—figure 1—source data 1
Processed data for the individual differences analysis between accuracy and pupil responses (both tasks).
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-app1-fig1-data1-v1.xlsx
-
Appendix 2—table 1—source data 1
Processed data input into the linear mixed modeling analysis for the cue-target 2AFC task.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-app2-table1-data1-v1.xlsx
-
Appendix 2—table 2—source data 1
Processed data input into the linear mixed modeling analysis for the letter-color 2AFC task.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-app2-table2-data1-v1.xlsx
-
Appendix 3—figure 1—source data 1
Processed pupil data used to generate the figures for the analysis of the control tasks related to the letter-color 2AFC task.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-app3-fig1-data1-v1.xlsx
-
Appendix 4—figure 1—source data 1
Processed pupil data used to generate the appendix figure showing the sanity checks of pupil pre-processing figure for both tasks.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105287/elife-105287-app4-fig1-data1-v1.xlsx
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Pupil dilation offers a time-window on prediction error
eLife 14:RP105287.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.105287.3
