Limitations of pupil diameter as a proxy for modes of locus coeruleus activity

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript uses a valuable dataset of simultaneous LC single-unit recordings and pupillometry in awake monkeys to examine one aspect of the relationship between LC activity and pupil diameter: whether baseline LC activity predicts evoked pupil and whether baseline pupil predicts evoked LC. These relationships are largely absent in the present dataset, and the authors conclude that this type of prediction is not reliable.

Strengths:

This is a valuable dataset of simultaneous LC single-unit recordings and pupillometry in awake monkeys, the within-modal and within-epoch analyses are sound. The new results further caution the use of pupil diameter to infer LC activity.

Weaknesses:

There is an obvious rationale for asking whether baseline LC relates to baseline pupil or evoked LC relates to evoked pupil. It is also obvious to ask about the relationship between baseline and evoked LC activity, and between baseline and pupil responses. However, the rationale for the cross-modal and cross-epoch analysis is not clear. Why should one expect baseline LC to predict evoked pupil, or baseline pupil to predict evoked LC? What is the biological importance of such predictions? These analyses simultaneously change the modality and the temporal domain.

Furthermore, some recent studies, which are not referenced in this manuscript, showed variability in the relationship between pupil and LC within the same epoch, and that tonic and phasic pupil responses could be regulated by different inputs to LC. Given that the pupil-LC coupling is readily imperfect and potentially controlled by different cellular and circuit mechanisms, it is not surprising that their cross-epoch relationship is even more variable.

One main analysis that correlated baseline pupil with evoked LC showed statistically different results between the two monkeys, raising the question of to what extent a general claim for the cross-modal cross-epoch analysis can be made.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The manuscript by Thompson and Gold reported that, although baseline and evoked LC activity were positively correlated with baseline pupil size and evoked pupil dilation, respectively, there were no reliable cross-epoch relationships between LC activity and pupil size - that is, between baseline LC activity and evoked pupil dilation or between baseline pupil size and evoked LC activity. A major strength of the study is its large dataset, comprising recordings from more than 100 LC single units collected across 83 recording sessions in two monkeys. The authors further strengthened their conclusions by performing several control analyses to rule out potential confounds, including whether the findings were influenced by (1) the use of residuals in the main analyses, (2) the possibility that the auditory stimulus failed to evoke the full dynamic range of LC activity and pupil responses, and (3) nonlinear cross-epoch relationships between LC activity and pupil size.

These findings are important because they remind researchers to exercise caution when assuming that non-illuminance-mediated fluctuations in pupil size can reliably serve as a proxy for LC activity under all experimental conditions

With that being said, I have two suggestions that I believe would further strengthen the manuscript.

(1) Previous studies have suggested that the LC is organized into functionally distinct subpopulations (e.g., PMID 28920933 and PMID 40770025). It is therefore possible that a subset of the LC neurons recorded in this study does not participate in controlling pupil size. I encourage the authors to discuss this possibility in the Discussion. In addition, this possibility could be tested by repeating the cross-epoch relationship analyses using only LC units that exhibit a strong correlation with pupil size (the darker points in the last column of the top two rows of Figure 1?).

(2) The manuscript would benefit from a clearer visualization of the analyses addressing the possibility that the auditory stimulus failed to evoke the full dynamic range of LC activity and pupil responses. A supplemental figure illustrating the distributions or ranges of LC activity and pupil responses, together with the corresponding control analyses, would help readers better understand this important point.