Pupil dilation as a function of pitch discrimination difficulty: A replication of Kahneman and Beatty, 1967.

In the present paper, we carry out a replication of a seminal paper by Kahneman, D. & Beatty, J. (1967). Perception & Psychophysics, 2(3),101–105 for using pupillometry as an implicit measure of auditory processing load, specifically, non-verbal auditory processing. While numerous papers since have supported the notion that pupillometry is a fairly reliable index of processing load in general (Zekveld, A. A., Koelewijn, T., and Kramer, S. E. (2018). Trends in Hearing, 22,1–25; Winn, M. B., Wendt, D., Koelewijn, T., and Kuchinsky, S. E. (2018). Trends in Hearing, 22,1–32), they typically have relied on memory recall, and/or more sophisticated cognitive tasks such as language comprehension or split attention. Kahneman and Beatty's paper, despite that it was published more than 50 years ago, continues to be the primary citation to support the claim that pupillometry is a reliable index of task difficulty for a simple non-verbal pitch discrimination task therefore giving us an implicit measure for listening effort (e.g.,Kramer, S. E., Lorens, A., Coninx, F., Zekveld, A. A., Piotrowska, A., & Skarzynski, H. (2013). Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(4),426–442; Schlemmer, K. B., Kulke, F., Kuchinke, L., & Van Der Meer, E. (2005). Psychophysiology, 42(4),465–472; Lisi, M., Bonato, M., and Zorzi, M. (2015). Biological Psychology, 112,39–45). This type of task takes very little explicit memory, is non-verbal, and relies heavily on more low-level, automatic perceptual processing. Using two different replication studies, one exact, and one modified, we only replicated the main result in the modified replication. The true replication failed to replicate on all nine statistical tests. Overall, our findings suggest that pupil dilation can be used as an implicit measure of task difficulty for a simple, non-semantic, auditory task, however, the robustness of the effect appears relatively weak in comparison with the original study, and the amount of variation across participants much greater. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]