Attention to the relevant object and space is the brain's strategy to effectively process the information of interest in complex environments with limited neural resources. Numerous studies have documented how attention is allocated in the visual domain, whereas the nature of attention in the auditory domain has been much less explored. Here, we show that the pupillary light response can serve as a physiological index of auditory attentional shift and can be used to probe the relationship between space-based and object-based attention as well. Experiments demonstrated that the pupillary response corresponds to the luminance condition where the attended auditory object (e.g., spoken sentence) was located, regardless of whether attention was directed by a spatial (left or right) or nonspatial (e.g., the gender of the talker) cue and regardless of whether the sound was presented via headphones or loudspeakers. These effects on the pupillary light response could not be accounted for as a consequence of small (although observable) biases in gaze position drifting. The overall results imply a unified audiovisual representation of spatial attention. Auditory object-based attention contains the space representation of the attended auditory object, even when the object is oriented without explicit spatial guidance.

Contrary to the long-held belief of a close linkage between pupil dilation and attractiveness, we found an early and transient pupil constriction response when participants viewed an attractive face (and the effect of luminance/contrast was controlled). While human participants were making an attractiveness judgment on faces, their pupil constricted more for the more attractive (as-to-be-rated) faces. Further experiments showed that the effect of pupil constriction to attractiveness judgment extended to intrinsically esthetic visual objects such as natural scene images (as well as faces) but not to line-drawing geometric figures. When participants were asked to judge the roundness of faces, pupil constriction still correlated with their attractiveness but not the roundness rating score, indicating the automaticity of the pupil constriction to attractiveness. When pupillary responses were manipulated implicitly by relative background luminance changes (from the prestimulus screen), the facial attractiveness ratings were in accordance with the amount of pupil constriction, which could not be explained solely by simultaneous or sequential luminance contrast. The overall results suggest that pupil constriction not only reflects but, as a part of self-monitoring and attribution mechanisms, also possibly contributes to facial attractiveness implicitly.