Skip to main content
. 2019 Jan 22;9:1190. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.01190

Figure 1.

Figure 1

The PLR is correlated with stimulus attention and PLR magnitude can be used to probe the dynamics of visuospatial attention. (A) The PLR distraction task. In this task, PLR-evoking probes are presented in one of three locations relative to a rewarded target: above fixation, away from all possible target locations (“neutral”), on the same side as the rewarded target (“congruent”), or in the opposite hemifield from the rewarded target (“incongruent”). PLR probes were presented both before and at various latencies after target onset. (B) Some example pupil traces [data from Ebitz and Moore (28)] showing the characteristic light-evoked constriction after an evoking probe (purple) compared to sham-probe trials (gray). (C) Left: Response time effects of PLR probes in each location. Congruent probes sped response times, while incongruent ones slowed response time. Neutral probes had little impact on response time. Right: The evoked PLR strongly predicted the extent to which that probe would capture attention, as measured by response time effects of the probes. (D) PLR magnitude (bigger = more constriction) as a function of the timing of the PLR probe. If the probe was presented before the rewarded target (negative stimulus onset asynchrony), there was no difference between congruent and incongruent probes. All PLRs were suppressed to probes presented immediately after the rewarded target. Then, as monkeys began to prepare a saccade to the rewarded target, congruent probes PLRs (blue) were enhanced relative to both incongruent (red) and neutral (gray). Figures modified from Ebitz et al. (14) and Ebitz (29) under a Creative Commons Attribution license and with permission from copyright holders.