Pupillary responses index cognitive resource limitations

Psychophysiology

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 457-461

  Granholm, Eric ^a,e   Asarnow, Robert F ^b   Sarkin, Andrew J ^c   Dykes, Karen L ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Capacity limits; Digit span recall; Processing resources; Pupillary responses

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; EVOKED RESPONSE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; MYDRIASIS; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUPIL REFLEX; RECALL; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 0029999480     PISSN: 00485772     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1996.tb01071.x     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Beatty, J. (1982). Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 276-292.
2. Ciuffreda, K. J. (1990). Accommodation and its anomalies. In W. N. Charman (Ed.), Vision and visual dysfunction. Vol. I: Visual optics and instrumentation (pp. 231-279). London: Macmillan.
3. Gophor, D., & Donchin, E. (1986). Workload - An examination of the concept. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance. Vol. II: Cognitive processes and performance (pp. 41-1-41-49). New York: Wiley.
4. Granholm, E., Asarnow, R. F., & Marder, S. R. (1991). Controlled information processing resources and the development of automatic detection responses in schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 22-30.
5. Granholm, E., Asarnow, R. F., & Marder, S. R. (1996). Dual-task performance operating characteristics, resource limitations, and automatic processing in schizophrenia. Neuropsychology.
6. Iwasaki, T. (1993). Effects of a visual task with cognitive demand on dynamic and steady-state accommodation.Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 13, 285-290.
7. Hirst, W., & Kalmar, D. (1987). Characterizing attentional resources. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 116, 68-81.
8. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
9. Loewenfeld, I. E. (1993). The pupil: Anatomy, physiology, and clinical applications. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
10. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits of our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
11. Peavler, W. S. (1974). Individual differences in pupil size and performance. In M. P. Janisse (Ed.), Pupillary dynamics and behavior (pp. 159-175). New York: Plenum.
12. Poock, G.K. (1973). Information processing vs. pupil diameter. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 37, 1000-1002.
13. Rosenfield, M., & Ciuffreda, K.J. (1994). Cognitive demand and transient nearwork-induced myopia. Optometry and Vision Science, 71, 381-385.
14. Steinhauer, S., & Hakerem, G. (1992). The pupillary response in cognitive psychophysiology and schizophrenia. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 658, 182-204.
15. Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63-102). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
16. Winn, B., Gilmartin, B., Mortimer, L. C., & Edwards, N. R. (1991). The effect of mental effort on open- and closed-loop accommodation. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 11, 335-339.