PURPOSE: A sustained pupilloconstriction is often observed after the cessation of a bright visual stimulus. This post-illumination pupil response (PIPR) is produced by the intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs). The present study was designed to examine the characteristics of the PIPR in a normal population without ocular disease. METHODS: Thirty-seven subjects (mean age, 48.6 years) were tested by presenting a 60 degrees, 10-second light stimulus (13 log quanta/cm(2)/s retinal irradiance) and recording pupillary responses for 50 seconds after light cessation. The light stimuli (470 [blue] and 623 [red] nm) were presented by an optical system to one eye after dilation, while the consensual pupil response of the fellow, undilated eye was recorded by infrared pupillometry. RESULTS: A positive PIPR was seen in all subjects tested. The population average of the PIPR for 470-nm light was 1.5 mm (SEM 0.10, P < 0.05) and the net PIPR (blue PIPR minus red PIPR) was 1.4 mm (SEM 0.09, P < 0.0001). The net PIPR correlated positively with baseline pupil diameter (P < 0.05), but not significantly with age, race, or sex (P > 0.05) in the test population. CONCLUSIONS: All normal subjects displayed a significant PIPR for a 10-second, 470-nm light stimulus, but not a 623-nm stimulus, which is consistent with the proposed melanopsin-mediated response. In most normal individuals, the amplitude of the PIPR was substantial. This test has the potential to be used as a tool in evaluating subjects with inner retinal dysfunction or melanopsin-related disorders.
PURPOSE: A sustained pupilloconstriction is often observed after the cessation of a bright visual stimulus. This post-illumination pupil response (PIPR) is produced by the intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs). The present study was designed to examine the characteristics of the PIPR in a normal population without ocular disease. METHODS: Thirty-seven subjects (mean age, 48.6 years) were tested by presenting a 60 degrees, 10-second light stimulus (13 log quanta/cm(2)/s retinal irradiance) and recording pupillary responses for 50 seconds after light cessation. The light stimuli (470 [blue] and 623 [red] nm) were presented by an optical system to one eye after dilation, while the consensual pupil response of the fellow, undilated eye was recorded by infrared pupillometry. RESULTS: A positive PIPR was seen in all subjects tested. The population average of the PIPR for 470-nm light was 1.5 mm (SEM 0.10, P < 0.05) and the net PIPR (blue PIPR minus red PIPR) was 1.4 mm (SEM 0.09, P < 0.0001). The net PIPR correlated positively with baseline pupil diameter (P < 0.05), but not significantly with age, race, or sex (P > 0.05) in the test population. CONCLUSIONS: All normal subjects displayed a significant PIPR for a 10-second, 470-nm light stimulus, but not a 623-nm stimulus, which is consistent with the proposed melanopsin-mediated response. In most normal individuals, the amplitude of the PIPR was substantial. This test has the potential to be used as a tool in evaluating subjects with inner retinal dysfunction or melanopsin-related disorders.
Authors: D F Fotiou; C G Brozou; D J Tsiptsios; A Fotiou; A Kabitsi; M Nakou; C Giantselidis; A Goula Journal: Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2007 Jan-Feb
Authors: Dennis M Dacey; Hsi-Wen Liao; Beth B Peterson; Farrel R Robinson; Vivianne C Smith; Joel Pokorny; King-Wai Yau; Paul D Gamlin Journal: Nature Date: 2005-02-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Farhan H Zaidi; Joseph T Hull; Stuart N Peirson; Katharina Wulff; Daniel Aeschbach; Joshua J Gooley; George C Brainard; Kevin Gregory-Evans; Joseph F Rizzo; Charles A Czeisler; Russell G Foster; Merrick J Moseley; Steven W Lockley Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2007-12-18 Impact factor: 10.834
Authors: Pablo A Barrionuevo; Nathaniel Nicandro; J Jason McAnany; Andrew J Zele; Paul Gamlin; Dingcai Cao Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Wisse P van der Meijden; Bart H W Te Lindert; Jennifer R Ramautar; Yishul Wei; Joris E Coppens; Maarten Kamermans; Christian Cajochen; Patrice Bourgin; Eus J W Van Someren Journal: Proc Biol Sci Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 5.349
Authors: Joshua J Gooley; Ivan Ho Mien; Melissa A St Hilaire; Sing-Chen Yeo; Eric Chern-Pin Chua; Eliza van Reen; Catherine J Hanley; Joseph T Hull; Charles A Czeisler; Steven W Lockley Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2012-10-10 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Steven Hughes; Carina A Pothecary; Aarti Jagannath; Russell G Foster; Mark W Hankins; Stuart N Peirson Journal: Eur J Neurosci Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 3.386