Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Cue validity effects in response preparation: a pupillometric study.

Sofie Moresi1, Jos J Adam, Jons Rijcken

  • 1Department of Movement Sciences, Maastricht University, The Netherlands. sofie.moresi@bw.unimaas.nl

Brain Research
|January 29, 2008
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Feedback focus: An exploration of documented feedback conversations with episodic versus continuous supervisors.

Medical teacher·2026
Same author

Crossmodal response precueing: age-related differences in action preparation.

The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences·2025
Same author

Assessing Geriatric Competencies in Residents: Validating the 5Ms Dimensions.

Journal of graduate medical education·2025
Same author

Exploring the effects of mapping rule switching on motor preparation in young and older adults: evidence from combining response cuing and task switching methodology.

Psychological research·2025
Same author

Continuity of supervision: Balancing continuous and episodic relationships for assessment and learning.

Medical education·2024
Same author

Exploring the use of metacognitive monitoring cues following a diagram completion intervention.

Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice·2024
Same journal

IGFBP3 and UBE2C are associated with protein modification pathways and serve as prognostic markers in glioma.

Brain research·2026
Same journal

Targeting neurodevelopmental miR132-3p promotes neuroprotection and axon regeneration after optic nerve injury in mice.

Brain research·2026
Same journal

Variability in acoustic startle response and prepulse inhibition across adulthood in Fragile X messenger ribonucleoprotein 1 knockout mice.

Brain research·2026
Same journal

Transcriptome-guided modeling reveals insulin-related metabolic dysfunction in SCA3 mouse cerebellum.

Brain research·2026
Same journal

Intranasal stromal cell-derived factor-1α mitigates parkinsonian deficits via dual modulation of neuroinflammation and gut microbiota in MPTP-induced models.

Brain research·2026
Same journal

Emotions, the amygdala, and the right hemisphere.

Brain research·2026
See all related articles

This study shows that pupil dilation reflects cognitive load in response preparation. Difficult cues increased pupil dilation, and invalid cues required more effortful reprogramming, supporting the Grouping Model.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Neuroscience
  • Human Factors

Background:

  • The Grouping Model explains how perceptual and motor processes are organized.
  • Response preparation is crucial for efficient task performance.
  • Pupillary response is a non-invasive measure of cognitive processing load.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To test the Grouping Model by examining cue validity and difficulty effects on response preparation.
  • To use pupillary response to index cognitive load during response preparation.
  • To investigate different pupil dilation strategies and their sensitivity to task difficulty.

Main Methods:

  • Twenty-two participants completed finger-cuing tasks with valid and invalid cues.
  • Pupillary response was recorded to measure cognitive processing load.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Reaction times and errors were analyzed alongside pupil dilation patterns.

    • Main Results:

    • Invalid cues led to longer reaction times, more errors, and larger pupil dilations compared to valid cues.
    • Pupil dilation during preparation varied with cue difficulty (easy vs. difficult).
    • A reversal in pupil dilation patterns for invalid cues suggested effortful reprogramming, supporting the Grouping Model.
    • Two pupil dilation strategies ('early' and 'late') were identified, with the 'late' strategy showing sensitivity to task difficulty during constriction.

    Conclusions:

    • The findings support the Grouping Model's predictions regarding response preparation.
    • Pupillary response effectively indexes cognitive load and reprogramming effort.
    • Task difficulty can influence pupil constriction, not just dilation, offering new insights into cognitive load measurement.