PURPOSE: We investigated the interaction between adapting field size and luminance on pupil diameter when cones alone (photopic) or rods and cones (mesopic) were active. METHOD: Circular achromatic targets (1° to 24° diameter) were presented to eight young participants on a rectangular projector screen. The accommodative influence on pupil diameter was minimised using cycloplegia in the foveally fixating right eye and the consensual pupillary reflex was measured in the left eye. Target luminance was adjusted for each stimulus such that corneal flux density (product of field area and luminance) was constant at 3,600 cd.deg(2) m(-2) (photopic condition) and 1.49 cd.deg(2) m(-2) (mesopic condition). RESULTS: There were no statistically significant effects of adaptive field size on pupil diameter for either condition. CONCLUSION: If corneal flux density is kept constant, there will be no change in pupil diameter as the size of the stimulus field increases at either mesopic or photopic lighting levels up to at least 24° diameter.
PURPOSE: We investigated the interaction between adapting field size and luminance on pupil diameter when cones alone (photopic) or rods and cones (mesopic) were active. METHOD: Circular achromatic targets (1° to 24° diameter) were presented to eight young participants on a rectangular projector screen. The accommodative influence on pupil diameter was minimised using cycloplegia in the foveally fixating right eye and the consensual pupillary reflex was measured in the left eye. Target luminance was adjusted for each stimulus such that corneal flux density (product of field area and luminance) was constant at 3,600 cd.deg(2) m(-2) (photopic condition) and 1.49 cd.deg(2) m(-2) (mesopic condition). RESULTS: There were no statistically significant effects of adaptive field size on pupil diameter for either condition. CONCLUSION: If corneal flux density is kept constant, there will be no change in pupil diameter as the size of the stimulus field increases at either mesopic or photopic lighting levels up to at least 24° diameter.
Authors: Carina Kelbsch; Torsten Strasser; Yanjun Chen; Beatrix Feigl; Paul D Gamlin; Randy Kardon; Tobias Peters; Kathryn A Roecklein; Stuart R Steinhauer; Elemer Szabadi; Andrew J Zele; Helmut Wilhelm; Barbara J Wilhelm Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Yang Wang; Adriana A Zekveld; Dorothea Wendt; Thomas Lunner; Graham Naylor; Sophia E Kramer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-06-13 Impact factor: 3.240