Using pupil diameter changes for measuring mental workload under mental processing

Journal of Applied Sciences

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 68-76

  Batmaz, Ihsan ^a   Öztürk, Mustafa ^a  

^a GAZI UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Brain activity; Measuring mental workkoad; Mental processing; Pupil measurements; Pupillary dilation

Indexed keywords

NASA;

BRAIN ACTIVITY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; MEASURING MENTAL WORKKOAD; MENTAL WORKLOAD; NEGATIVE CORRELATION; PUPIL DIAMETER; PUPILLARY DILATION; UNIVERSITY STUDENTS;

BRAIN;

EID: 41949123712     PISSN: 18125654     EISSN: 18125662     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3923/jas.2008.68.76     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Aboyoun, D.C. and M. Jr. Dabbs, 1998. The Hess pupil dilation findings: Sex or novelty. Social Behavior and Personality: An Int. J., 26 (4): 415-420.
2. Baldwin, C.L., 2003. Neuroergonomics of mental workload: New insights from the convergence of brain and behaviour in ergonomics research. Theor. Iss. Ergon. Sci., 4 (1-2): 132-141.
3. Beatty, J., 1982, Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load and the structure of processing resources. Psychol. Bull., 91: 276-292.
4. Brvan, B.A. and B.P. Stone, 2003. A non-geographical application of spatial information systems in pupillometry. Trans. GIS, 7(4): 485-504.
5. Hess, E.H. and J.M. Polt, 1960. Pupil size as related to the interest value of visual stimuli. Science, 132: 349-350.
6. Hess, E.H., 1965. Attitude and pupil. Scientific American, 212: 46-54.
7. Kahneman, D., 1973. Attention and Effort. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
8. Kaptan, S., 1993. Bilimsel Araştιrma ve İstatistik Teknikleri. Rehber Yayιnevi, Ankara, pp: 231-252.
9. Karakaş, S. and E. Başar, 2003. Salιnιmsal Nöral Topluluklarιn Beynin Bütünleşik Faaliyetindeki Yeri Beyin ve Nöropsikoloji-Temel ve Klinik Bilimler, Çizgi Tιp Yayιnevi. Ankara, 4: 67-83.
10. Luximon, A. and R.S. Goonetilleke, 2001. Simplified subjective workload assessment technique. Ergonomics, 44 (3): 229-243.
11. Martniez de la Teja, G.M., 2001. An ergonomics study at an information department of the computer at National Autonomous Uruversity of Mexico. J. Ind. Ergon., 27: 411-415.
12. Miyake, S., 2001. Multivariate workload evaluation combining physiological and subjective measures. Int J. Psychophysiol., 40: 233-238.
13. Moray, N., 1988. Mental workload since 1979. Int. Rev. Ergon., 2: 123-150.
14. Morgan, C.T., 1980. A brief introduction to psychology. Çeviren: Karakaş, S. ve Arkadaşlarι, Psikolojiye Giriş 9. Baskι, Meteksan Ltd., Şti., Ankara, pp: 219-224.
15. Noyes, J., K. Garland and L. Ribbons, 2004. Paper based versus computer based assessment: Is workload another test mode effect. Br. J. Educ. Technol., 35 (1): 111-113.
16. Özesmi Ç., C. Süer, A. Gölgeli, M. Aşçioǧlu, N. Dolu and A. Yilmaz, 2000. Sinir Sisteminin Elektrofιzyolojisi ve Kayιt Yöntemleri Multidisipliner Yaklaşιmla Beyin ve Kognisyon, Çizgi Tιp Yayιnevi, Ankara, 1: 1-11.
17. Stern, J.A., 1997. The pupil of the eye: What can it tell us about mental process. Human Engineering for Quality Life (HQI) Quarterly, pp: 8.
18. Vitense, H.S., J.A. Jacko and V.K. Emery, 2003. Multimodal feedback: An assessment of performance and mental workload. Ergonomics, 46 (1): 68-87.
19. Young, M.S. and N.A. Stanton, 2002. Commentary: It's all relative: Defining mental workload in the light of annet's paper. Ergonomics, 45 (14): 1018-1020.