Characterizing the effect of aging on resting and event-evoked ocular response dynamics

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-NC-4.0

Abstract

Ocular measures are increasingly used as non-invasive proxies of cognitive processes such as attention and listening effort. However, their interpretation in aging populations is complicated by concurrent changes in ocular physiology and oculomotor control, raising a critical question: to what extent do age-related differences in these measures reflect cognitive rather than other physiological factors? Here, we dissociate these contributions by characterizing ocular dynamics (resting and event-evoked) during passive fixation in younger (N = 98, 18–35 years) and older adults (N = 71, 60+ years). Aging is associated with pronounced alterations in pupil dynamics, including reduced baseline variability and slower, attenuated responses to both auditory and visual events. In contrast, microsaccade dynamics did not correlate with aging. Across measures, ocular responses showed moderate-to-high within-subject stability across blocks, and factor analysis in the older cohort revealed separable components reflecting instantaneous pupil responsivity, sustained pupil responsivity, and microsaccade dynamics, with additional variance associated with sensory decline and age-related changes in pupil dynamics. Together, these findings demonstrate a clear dissociation: pupil-based metrics are strongly influenced by aging, whereas microsaccades remain comparatively stable across age groups. This dissociation provides a principled basis for interpreting ocular indices in aging research and highlights the need to account for baseline physiological differences when inferring cognitive processes from eye-based measures.
Full text 2,004 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Ocular measures are increasingly used as non-invasive proxies of cognitive processes such as attention and listening effort. However, their interpretation in aging populations is complicated by concurrent changes in ocular physiology and oculomotor control, raising a critical question: to what extent do age-related differences in these measures reflect cognitive rather than other physiological factors? Here, we dissociate these contributions by characterizing ocular dynamics (resting and event-evoked) during passive fixation in younger (N = 98, 18–35 years) and older adults (N = 71, 60+ years). Aging is associated with pronounced alterations in pupil dynamics, including reduced baseline variability and slower, attenuated responses to both auditory and visual events. In contrast, microsaccade dynamics did not correlate with aging. Across measures, ocular responses showed moderate-to-high within-subject stability across blocks, and factor analysis in the older cohort revealed separable components reflecting instantaneous pupil responsivity, sustained pupil responsivity, and microsaccade dynamics, with additional variance associated with sensory decline and age-related changes in pupil dynamics. Together, these findings demonstrate a clear dissociation: pupil-based metrics are strongly influenced by aging, whereas microsaccades remain comparatively stable across age groups. This dissociation provides a principled basis for interpreting ocular indices in aging research and highlights the need to account for baseline physiological differences when inferring cognitive processes from eye-based measures. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Footnotes Conflicts of interest: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Data sharing: The data reported in this manuscript alongside related information will be available on DOI: 10.5522/04/32122729

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-27T02:00:06.600101+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-4.0