Corinne F Carle1, Ted Maddess, Andrew C James. 1. ARC Centre of Excellence in Vision Science, Research School of Biology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. corinne.carle@anu.edu.au
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the neural basis of contraction anisocoria and any implications for assessments using pupillary responses, through analysis of topographic variation in amplitudes of direct and consensual pupil responses. METHODS: Direct and consensual pupillary contraction amplitudes were analyzed from six studies in which 120 normal subjects were tested with 24 different stimulus variants. The dichoptically presented multifocal stimulus arrays subtended ± 30° of visual field but varied in color (achromatic or yellow), number of test regions (24 to 60/eye), mean regional presentation interval (0.25 to 16 s), and pulse time-course (33 to 150 ms, flickered or steady). The 290 cd/m(2) test-regions were displayed on a 10 cd/m(2) background. Ratios between mean direct and consensual responses were calculated for each region. Results were quantified using multivariate linear analysis. RESULTS: Direct responses within the temporal hemifield were significantly larger than consensual for all stimulus protocols. Across the 24 protocols these differences ranged between 13.8% (t(1415)=3.06, P<0.01) and 27.0% (t(990)=5.72, P<0.0001). Differences in the nasal field were mostly non-significant. Contraction amplitudes varied systematically across the visual field. By contrast, direct/consensual ratios were markedly uniform within each hemifield. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of signal from the pretectal olivary nuclei to each Edinger-Westphal nucleus differs depending on the hemifield being stimulated. A simple model incorporating segregation and summation of afferent signals, and differing saturation of midbrain pathways is proposed. This appears to explain inconsistent observations in the literature and predicates the need for separate assessment of direct and consensual responses at hemifield or better resolution. Copyright 2011 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
PURPOSE: To investigate the neural basis of contraction anisocoria and any implications for assessments using pupillary responses, through analysis of topographic variation in amplitudes of direct and consensual pupil responses. METHODS: Direct and consensual pupillary contraction amplitudes were analyzed from six studies in which 120 normal subjects were tested with 24 different stimulus variants. The dichoptically presented multifocal stimulus arrays subtended ± 30° of visual field but varied in color (achromatic or yellow), number of test regions (24 to 60/eye), mean regional presentation interval (0.25 to 16 s), and pulse time-course (33 to 150 ms, flickered or steady). The 290 cd/m(2) test-regions were displayed on a 10 cd/m(2) background. Ratios between mean direct and consensual responses were calculated for each region. Results were quantified using multivariate linear analysis. RESULTS: Direct responses within the temporal hemifield were significantly larger than consensual for all stimulus protocols. Across the 24 protocols these differences ranged between 13.8% (t(1415)=3.06, P<0.01) and 27.0% (t(990)=5.72, P<0.0001). Differences in the nasal field were mostly non-significant. Contraction amplitudes varied systematically across the visual field. By contrast, direct/consensual ratios were markedly uniform within each hemifield. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of signal from the pretectal olivary nuclei to each Edinger-Westphal nucleus differs depending on the hemifield being stimulated. A simple model incorporating segregation and summation of afferent signals, and differing saturation of midbrain pathways is proposed. This appears to explain inconsistent observations in the literature and predicates the need for separate assessment of direct and consensual responses at hemifield or better resolution. Copyright 2011 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
Authors: Andrew J Tatham; Daniel Meira-Freitas; Robert N Weinreb; Linda M Zangwill; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Ted Maddess; Joshua P van Kleef; Emilie M F Rohan; Corinne F Carle; Jonathan Baird-Gunning; Bhim B Rai; Anne Bruestle; Jo Lane; Christian J Lueck Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2022-09-13 Impact factor: 3.830
Authors: Ted Maddess; Corinne F Carle; Emilie M F Rohan; Jonathan Baird-Gunning; Josh P van Kleef; Christian J Lueck Journal: eNeurologicalSci Date: 2022-10-08
Authors: Andrew J Tatham; Daniel Meira-Freitas; Robert N Weinreb; Amir H Marvasti; Linda M Zangwill; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-01-29 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Carolina P B Gracitelli; Andrew J Tatham; Linda M Zangwill; Robert N Weinreb; Ricardo Y Abe; Alberto Diniz-Filho; Augusto Paranhos; Saif Baig; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 4.799