Task-evoked pulse wave amplitude tracks cognitive load.

Cognitive load is a crucial factor in mentally demanding activities and holds significance across various research fields. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of pulse wave amplitude (PWA) as a measure for tracking cognitive load and associated mental effort in comparison to heart rate (HR) during a digit span task. The data from 78 participants were included in the analyses. Participants performed a memory task in which they were asked to memorize sequences of 5, 9, or 13 digits, and a control task where they passively listened to the sequences. PWA and HR were quantified from photoplethysmography (PPG) and electrocardiography (ECG), respectively. Pupil dilation was also assessed as a measure of cognitive load. We found that PWA showed a strong suppression with increasing memory load, indicating sensitivity to cognitive load. In contrast, HR did not show significant changes with task difficulty. Moreover, when memory load exceeded the capacity of working memory, a reversal of the PWA pattern was observed, indicating cognitive overload. In this respect, changes in PWA in response to cognitive load correlated with the dynamics of pupil dilation, suggesting a potential shared underlying mechanism. Additionally, both HR and PWA demonstrated a relationship with behavioral performance, with higher task-evoked HR and lower PWA associated with better memory performance. Our findings suggest that PWA is a more sensitive measure than HR for tracking cognitive load and overload. PWA, measured through PPG, holds significant potential for practical applications in assessing cognitive load due to its ease of use and sensitivity to cognitive overload. The findings contribute to the understanding of psychophysiological indicators of cognitive load and offer insights into the use of PWA as a non-invasive measure in various contexts.

Working Memory Capacity Depends on Attention Control, but Not Selective Attention.

Working memory and attention are interrelated constructs that are sometimes even considered indistinguishable. Since attention is not a uniform construct, it is possible that different types of attention affect working memory capacity differently. To clarify this issue, we investigated the relationship between working memory capacity and various components of attention. The sample consisted of 136 healthy adult participants aged 18 to 37 years (M = 20.58, SD = 2.74). Participants performed tasks typically used to assess working memory (operation span, change detection, simple digit span, and adaptive digit span tasks), selective attention (visual search task), and attention control (Stroop and antisaccade tasks). We tested several models with working memory and attention, either as a unitary factor or being divided into selective attention and attention control factors. A confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model with three latent variables-working memory capacity, attention control, and selective attention-fit the data best. Results showed that working memory and attention are distinct but correlated constructs: working memory capacity was only related to attention control, whereas attention control was related to both constructs. We propose that differences in working memory capacity are determined only by the ability to maintain attention on the task, while differences in the ability to filter out non-salient distractors are not related to working memory capacity.