Anxious Problem-Solving in Depression 1
Supplemental Analyses
Effects of Pupilometer/Eye-tracker and Scanning Environment
ISCAN RK464 Pupilometer. As expected, pupil dilation increased in proportion to task difficulty
and remained dilated through the expenditure of cognitive load. Specifically, participants demonstrated
less pupil dilation to 4 move problems relative to 5 move and 6 move problems from 21 seconds to 36
seconds. Participants demonstrated less pupil dilation during 5 move relative to 6 move problems at 23
seconds, 25 to 26 seconds, and from 33 to 36 seconds (See SS Table 2 for simple contrasts and effect
sizes) There was a significant task difficulty-by-time interaction F(72,2808)=4.16, p<.001, that qualified
the main effects of task difficulty F(2,78)=85.61, p<0.001and time F(36,1404)=10.95, p<0.001. To
control for Type I error at p=.05 for all tests along a given waveform, we used Guthrie and Buchwald’s
(1991) strategy. Based on this technique, condition related differences in pupillary responses at each time
point along the waveforms were considered significant at p<.05 when over 3 seconds of consecutive tests
were statistically significant at p<.05.
ASL 504 Model Eye-tracker. As expected, pupil dilation increased in proportion to task difficulty
and remained dilated through the expenditure of cognitive load. Specifically, participants demonstrated
less pupil dilation to 4 move problems relative to 5 move and 6 move problems from 16 seconds to 36
seconds. Participants demonstrated less pupil dilation during 5 move relative to 6 move problems at 21
seconds, 22 seconds, 24 to 29 seconds, 30 seconds and from 32 to 34 seconds (See SS Table 3 for simple
contrasts and effect sizes). There was a significant task difficulty-by-time interaction F(72,2332)=2.39,
p<0.001, that qualified the main effects of task difficulty F(2,62)=263.89, p<0.001and time
F(36,1116)=5.62, p<0.001.
Analysis of the differences between the ISCAN RK464 pupilometer and the ASL Model 504 eyetracker, indicated that during 4 move and 5 move problems participants scanned using the ISCAN
pupilometer (M4MV =0.28, SE4MV=0.01, M5MV=0.22, SE5MV=0.01 ), demonstrated greater pupil dilation than
participants scanned using the ASL eye-tracker (M4MV =0.30, SE4MV=0.01, M5MV=0.27, SE5MV=0.01 ),
Anxious Problem-Solving in Depression 2
t4MV=7.51, p<0.001; t5mv=3.36, p<0.001. The ISCAN pupilometer (M =0.32, SE=0.01, and ASL eyetracker (M =0.31, SE=0.01), did not differ in the magnitude of dilation to 6 move problems t6mv=1.37,
p<0.173. There was a significant task difficulty-by-pupilometer interaction F(2,140)=63.95, p<0 .001
and a task difficulty-by-time interaction F(72,5112)=6.22, p<0.001, that qualified the main effects of
pupilometer F(1,70)=18.52, p<0.001, task difficulty F(2,140)=360.67, p<0.001and time
F(36,2556)=15.82, p<0 .001.
Was planning accuracy and planning time correlated with pupil dilation during the TOL?
After controlling for the main effects of task difficulty, F(2,142)=10.86, p<.001, time, F(36,2556) =54.59,
p<.001, and the difficulty-by- time interaction, F(72,5112)=1.18, p=0.140, the main effect of planning
accuracy F(1,7772)=2.01, p=.157, was qualified by a planning accuracy-by-time interaction,
F(36,7772)=2.05, p<.001. The interaction indicated that planning accuracy was positive correlated with
pupil dilation from 2 to 22 seconds during planning, r = .19, p<.001 (Fig. 7a). Similarly, after controlling
for the main effects of task difficulty, F(2,142)=2.85, p=.061, time, F(36,2556) =53.41, p<.001, and the
difficulty-by- time interaction, F(72,5112)=0.87, p=0.772, the main effect of planning time
F(1,7772)=0.69, p=.406, was qualified by a planning time-by-time interaction, F(36,7772)=1.65, p =
.008. The interaction indicated that planning time was negatively correlated with pupil dilation from 3 to
8 seconds, r=-.15, p= .013, and was positively with pupil dilation from 24 to 36 seconds during planning,
r=.19, p<.001 (Fig 7b). To control for Type I error at p=.05 for all tests along a given waveform, we used
Guthrie and Buchwald’s (1991) strategy. Based on this technique, correlations between behavioral
performance and pupillary responses at each time point along the waveforms were considered significant
at p<.05 when over 4 seconds of consecutive tests were statistically significant at p<.05.
Anxious Problem-Solving in Depression 3
Supplemental Tables
SS Table 1. Simple contrasts of motivation and emotional variables over the course of the Tower of London.
Motivation
Anxiety
Sadness
Depressed
t
p
d
t
p
d
t
p
Rumination
Control
d
t
p
d
t
p
d
Baseline vs. Block 1 -1.59 0.113 -0.38 -8.52 <0.001 -2.01
3.23 0.001
0.76
-1.85 0.066 -0.44 6.37
<0.001 1.50
Baseline vs. Block 2 -0.61 0.541 -0.14 -6.33 <0.001 -1.49
2.17 0.031
0.51
-1.16 0.248 -0.27 4.96
<0.001 1.17
Baseline vs. Block 3 -0.42 0.678 -0.10 -5.09 <0.001 -1.20
1.50 0.136
0.35
-1.04 0.299 -0.25 4.27
<0.001 1.01
Block 1 vs. Block 2
0.80 0.427
0.19
0.48
0.631
0.11
-0.46 0.645 -0.11
0.37 0.712
0.09 -0.29
0.770
-0.07
Block 1 vs. Block 3
0.75 0.452
0.18
1.06
0.290
0.25
-0.87 0.386 -0.20
0.29 0.772
0.07 -0.59
0.558
-0.14
Block 2 vs. Block 3
0.18 0.854
0.04
0.87
0.387
0.20
-0.65 0.519 -0.15
0.00 1.000
0.00 -0.43
0.670
-0.10
Note. d=Cohen's d
Anxious Problem-Solving in Depression 4
SS Table 3. Simple contrasts examining differences in pupil motility between different levels of
task load for the ISCAN Pupilometer
Omnibus
4 Move vs. 5 Move
4 Move vs. 6 Move
5 Move vs. 6 Move
Time
F
p
t
p
d
t
p
d
t
p
d
16
0.66
0.516
-0.59
0.055
-0.09
-1.14
0.256
-0.18
-0.87
0.382
-0.14
17
1.24
0.289
-1.29
0.198
-0.20
-1.53
0.127
-0.24
-0.68
0.497
-0.11
18
1.12
0.327
-0.86
0.39
-0.14
-1.49
0.136
-0.24
-1.06
0.288
-0.17
19
1.58
0.207
-0.62
0.539
-0.10
-1.67
0.095
-0.26
-1.54
0.124
-0.24
20
2.43
0.088
-1.53
0.127
-0.24
-2.20
0.028
-0.35
-1.31
0.190
-0.21
21
3.75
0.023
-2.53
0.011
-0.40
-2.43
0.015
-0.38
-0.60
0.550
-0.09
22
4.26
0.014
-2.08
0.038
-0.33
-2.91
0.004
-0.46
-1.66
0.096
-0.26
23
3.88
0.021
-1.61
0.108
-0.25
-2.77
0.006
-0.44
-1.97
0.049
-0.31
24
4.19
0.015
-2.20
0.028
-0.35
-2.86
0.004
-0.45
-1.48
0.140
-0.23
25
5.90
0.003
-2.39
0.017
-0.38
-3.43
<0.001
-0.54
-2.03
0.042
-0.32
26
6.27
0.002
-2.24
0.025
-0.35
-3.54
<0.001
-0.56
-2.33
0.020
-0.37
27
7.20
<0.001
-2.92
0.004
-0.46
-3.74
<0.001
-0.59
-1.90
0.057
-0.30
28
7.23
<0.001
-3.02
0.003
-0.48
-3.71
<0.001
-0.59
-1.76
0.078
-0.28
29
7.54
<0.001
-3.07
0.002
-0.49
-3.79
<0.001
-0.60
-1.82
0.069
-0.29
30
6.80
0.001
-3.08
0.002
-0.49
-3.54
<0.001
-0.56
-1.48
0.138
-0.23
31
6.92
<0.001
-2.92
0.004
-0.46
-3.64
<0.001
-0.58
-1.77
0.077
-0.28
32
8.63
<0.001
-3.29
0.001
-0.52
-4.06
<0.001
-0.64
-1.95
0.051
-0.31
33
7.26
<0.001
-2.56
0.011
-0.40
-3.81
<0.001
-0.60
-2.35
0.019
-0.37
34
8.46
<0.001
-2.41
0.016
-0.38
-4.10
<0.001
-0.65
-2.88
0.004
-0.46
35
10.46
<0.001
-2.91
0.004
-0.46
-4.57
<0.001
-0.72
-2.99
0.003
-0.47
36
7.58
<0.001
-2.66
0.008
-0.42
-3.89
<0.001
-0.62
-2.36
0.018
-0.37
Note. d=Cohen's d
Anxious Problem-Solving in Depression 5
SS Table 4. Simple contrasts examining differences in pupil motility between different levels of
task load for the ASL 504 Eye-tracker
Omnibus
4 Move vs. 5 Move
4 Move vs. 6 Move
5 Move vs. 6 Move
Time
F
p
t
p
d
t
p
d
t
p
d
16
3.79
0.023
-2.39
0.017
-0.42
-2.58
0.010
-0.46
-0.94
0.349
-0.17
17
3.63
0.027
-2.49
0.013
-0.44
-2.39
0.017
-0.42
-0.59
0.554
-0.10
18
4.27
0.014
-2.64
0.008
-0.47
-2.66
0.008
-0.47
-0.78
0.435
-0.14
19
4.45
0.012
-2.51
0.012
-0.44
-2.85
0.004
-0.50
-1.17
0.243
-0.21
20
4.71
0.009
-2.46
0.014
-0.44
-2.99
0.003
-0.53
-1.39
0.165
-0.25
21
6.90
0.001
-2.64
0.008
-0.47
-3.70
<0.001
-0.65
-2.12
0.034
-0.38
22
7.98
<0.001
-2.91
0.004
-0.51
-3.97
<0.001
-0.70
-2.21
0.028
-0.39
23
8.38
<0.001
-3.27
0.001
-0.58
-3.99
<0.001
-0.71
-1.88
0.060
-0.33
24
8.67
<0.001
-2.61
0.009
-0.46
-4.16
<0.001
-0.74
-2.76
0.006
-0.49
25
10.07
<0.001
-2.46
0.014
-0.44
-4.45
<0.001
-0.79
-3.28
0.001
-0.58
26
8.37
<0.001
-2.29
0.022
-0.41
-4.07
<0.001
-0.72
-2.95
0.003
-0.52
27
7.66
<0.001
-2.58
0.010
-0.46
-3.91
<0.001
-0.69
-2.46
0.014
-0.44
28
10.30
<0.001
-3.06
0.002
-0.54
-4.53
<0.001
-0.80
-2.78
0.006
-0.49
29
10.11
<0.001
-3.17
0.002
-0.56
-4.48
<0.001
-0.79
-2.60
0.009
-0.46
30
10.74
<0.001
-3.36
<0.001
-0.59
-4.61
<0.001
-0.81
-2.58
0.010
-0.46
31
10.02
<0.001
-3.71
<0.001
-0.66
-4.30
<0.001
-0.76
-1.84
0.067
-0.32
32
11.03
<0.001
-3.86
<0.001
-0.68
-4.53
<0.001
-0.80
-1.98
0.048
-0.35
33
10.25
<0.001
-3.29
0.001
-0.58
-4.50
<0.001
-0.80
-2.51
0.012
-0.44
34
9.69
<0.001
-3.26
0.001
-0.58
-4.36
<0.001
-0.77
-2.36
0.018
-0.42
35
8.04
<0.001
-3.30
0.001
-0.58
-3.87
<0.001
-0.68
-1.68
0.094
-0.30
36
5.61
0.004
-2.89
0.004
-0.51
-3.15
0.002
-0.56
-1.17
0.242
-0.21
Note. d=Cohen's d
Anxious Problem-Solving in Depression 6
B. Planning Time
Mean proportional
change in range-corrected
pupil diameter
A. Planning Accuracy
0.63
0.56
0.49
0.42
0.35
0.28
0.21
0.14
0.07
0.00
0.63
0.56
0.49
0.42
0.35
0.28
0.21
0.14
0.07
0.00
Low Planning Accuracy
Moderate Planning Accuracy
High Planning Accuracy
p < .05
r = .19*
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time (seconds)
30
35
40
Low Planning Time
Moderate Planning Time
High Planning Time
p < .05
r = .18*
r = -.15*
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time (seconds)
SA Fig. 1 Pupil dilation correlated with planning accuracy and planning time as a function of time. The red bar under each pupil dilation
waveform reflects where the correlation between measures of performance and pupil dilation at each time-point is statistically significant at
p<0.05. Black underlined segments indicate regions that are statistical significant after controlling for multiple comparisons.
40
Anxious Problem-Solving in Depression 7
References
Guthrie, D., & Buchwald, J. S. (1991). Significance Testing of Difference Potentials.
Psychophysiology, 28(2), 240-244.