Pupillometry and autonomic nervous system responses to cognitive load and false feedback: an unsupervised machine learning approach
Evgeniia I. Alshanskaia,Galina V. Portnova,Krystsina Liaukovich,Olga V. Martynova
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2024.1445697
IF: 4.3
2024-09-02
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Abstract:Objectives: Pupil dilation is controlled both by sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system branches. We hypothesized that the dynamic of pupil size changes under cognitive load with additional false feedback can predict individual behavior along with heart rate variability (HRV) patterns and eye movements reflecting specific adaptability to cognitive stress. To test this, we employed an unsupervised machine learning approach to recognize groups of individuals distinguished by pupil dilation dynamics and then compared their autonomic nervous system (ANS) responses along with time, performance, and self-esteem indicators in cognitive tasks. Methods: Cohort of 70 participants were exposed to tasks with increasing cognitive load and deception, with measurements of pupillary dynamics, HRV, eye movements, and cognitive performance and behavioral data. Utilizing machine learning k-means clustering algorithm, pupillometry data were segmented to distinct responses to increasing cognitive load and deceit. Further analysis compared clusters, focusing on how physiological (HRV, eye movements) and cognitive metrics (time, mistakes, self-esteem) varied across two clusters of different pupillary response patterns, investigating the relationship between pupil dynamics and autonomic reactions. Results: Cluster analysis of pupillometry data identified two distinct groups with statistically significant varying physiological and behavioral responses. Cluster 0 showed elevated HRV, alongside larger initial pupil sizes. Cluster 1 participants presented lower HRV but demonstrated increased and pronounced oculomotor activity. Behavioral differences included reporting more errors and lower self-esteem in Cluster 0, and faster response times with more precise reactions to deception demonstrated by Cluster 1. Lifestyle variations such as smoking habits and differences in Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores were significant between the clusters. Conclusion: The differentiation in pupillary dynamics and related metrics between the clusters underlines the complex interplay between autonomic regulation, cognitive load, and behavioral responses to cognitive load and deceptive feedback. These findings underscore the potential of pupillometry combined with machine learning in identifying individual differences in stress resilience and cognitive performance. Our research on pupillary dynamics and ANS patterns can lead to the development of remote diagnostic tools for real-time cognitive stress monitoring and performance optimization, applicable in clinical, educational, and occupational settings.
neurosciences