Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 10, 2026
07:48
Eye Tracking During A Complex Aviation Task For Insights Into Information Processing
Published on: April 4, 2025
Pupillary response predicts multiple object tracking load, error rate, and conscientiousness, but not inattentional
Timothy J Wright1, Walter R Boot, Chelsea S Morgan
1Department of Psychology, Florida State University, 1107W. Call St., Tallahassee, FL 32306, United States. timwright@psy.fsu.edu
Acta Psychologica
|June 8, 2013
Summary
Effort and primary task engagement do not predict inattentional blindness (IB). Pupillary response, a measure of effort, did not distinguish between participants who noticed an unexpected event and those who did not, suggesting IB is independent of task engagement.
Area of Science:
- Cognitive Psychology
- Psychophysiology
Background:
- Inattentional blindness (IB) research has identified few individual difference predictors for failing to detect unexpected events.
- A perplexing lack of correlation exists between primary task performance and IB, despite the expectation that higher performance implies greater effort and fewer resources for unexpected stimuli.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate if pupillary response, a psychophysiological measure of cognitive effort, predicts inattentional blindness.
- To explore the relationship between effort in a primary task (multiple object tracking) and the ability to detect an unexpected event.
Main Methods:
- Participants engaged in a multiple object tracking task while their pupillary response was monitored.
- Pupillary response and task errors were analyzed in relation to conscientiousness and the detection of an unexpected visual stimulus.
Main Results:
- Pupillary response effectively reflected tracking load and individual differences in task errors.
- Pupillary response was a stronger predictor of conscientiousness than task errors, which showed no correlation.
- Despite sensitivity to task load and conscientiousness, pupillary response did not differentiate between participants who noticed the unexpected event and those who did not.
Conclusions:
- Individual differences in effort, as measured by pupillary response, and primary task engagement are not significantly related to inattentional blindness.
- Findings suggest that factors other than task effort and engagement influence the occurrence of inattentional blindness.
