Back

Predicting Conscious Perception from Pupil's Aperture Size Using Machine Learning Techniques

Pandey, P.; Pethe, S. R.; Indrajeet, I.; Ray, S.

2026-08-31 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.08.26.747446 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Introduction: Decision making for selecting an object or a course of action from possible alternatives largely depends on our perceptual ability modulated by attention. When multiple stimuli appear close together in time, processing one stimulus can temporarily impair the processing of another due to temporal limitations of attention. Observers frequently fail to detect the second target (T2) presented within a few hundred milliseconds after the first target (T1) in a stream of stimuli, which is commonly known as attentional blink (AB). Existing theories attribute this perceptual lapse to T1 processing, distractor interference, or transient attentional gating; however, the computations underlying suppressive mechanism remains unresolved. We investigated whether pupil-size could reveal the underlying mechanisms of AB and predict conscious perception on a trial-by-trial basis. Methods: Pupil diameter and gaze locations were recorded using an infrared eye tracker. Machine learning techniques were used to classify trials when T2 was detected versus when it was not, after correct identification of T1, during an AB task from the pupil dynamics, which also yielded attentional episode (AE) associated with each element in the stream of visual stimuli when deconvolved. Results: Cross-validating classifiers achieved near-perfect accuracy not only in distinguishing but also predicting perceptual outcomes on a single-trial basis. AEs exhibited greater power when T2 was detected than when it was missed; the differential power in AEs on a logarithmic scale was highly synced with the differential pupil size. Conclusions: Collectively, these findings establish a framework for predicting attention-driven perceptual outcomes from pupil-dynamics at finer time-scale.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.