M3 functional pupil bridge: from trajectories to joint measurement

In eyeprocess: Harmonize Eye-Tracking, Pupillometry, Biometrics, and Psychometric Process Data

knitr::opts_chunk$set(collapse = TRUE, comment = "#>")
library(eyeprocess)

Why the first M3 likelihood is scalar

eyeprocess already contains trajectory-level pupil machinery, including functional pupil specifications, event deconvolution, confound modelling and signal-quality workflows. M3 does not replace those tools with a new parallel implementation. Instead, the first four-channel reference likelihood uses a trial-level scalar pupil measurement so that the four-dimensional person/item covariance architecture can be validated cleanly.

The functional bridge is explicit: an analyst first derives a scientifically justified trial-level score from the existing pupil workflow, then records that score as the M3 pupil representation.

sim <- simulate_multimodal_m3(n_person = 40, n_item = 8, seed = 20260815)
d <- sim$data

# Demonstration only. In a real workflow this should be an output from the
# package's functional/deconvolution pipeline with its provenance retained.
d$functional_score <- as.numeric(scale(d$pupil_baseline))

bridge <- multimodal_m3_functional_bridge(
  d,
  score = "functional_score",
  provenance = "demonstration score; replace with validated functional-pupil derivation"
)
print(bridge)

spec <- multimodal_m3_spec(pupil_representation = "functional_score")
print(spec)

What the bridge does not do

The bridge does not silently select a time window, smooth a signal, interpolate blinks, deconvolve events, baseline-correct, or decide whether a trajectory component is psychologically meaningful. Those choices belong to the upstream pupil workflow and should remain inspectable.

It also does not claim that a scalar functional score preserves all information in the original trajectory. M3 therefore distinguishes three evidence questions:

1. Is the raw/processed pupil trajectory measured with defensible quality and nuisance control?
2. Is the scalar representation reproducible and stable enough to enter a joint model?
3. Does that representation add response-target psychometric information beyond response, RT and gaze?

Only the third question is answered by M3 ablation and multimodal_m3_process_information().

Future full functional likelihood

A later extension can place a basis-coefficient or functional trajectory likelihood directly inside the joint model. It should only be promoted after basis choice, temporal correlation, baseline/luminance/gaze-position adjustment, missing trajectories and parameter recovery are validated. The scalar bridge is intentionally conservative groundwork for that extension rather than a claim that functional modelling has already been solved.

eyeprocess documentation built on Sept. 28, 2026, 5:08 p.m.