Shaobo Lei1, Herbert C Goltz2, Manokaraananthan Chandrakumar1, Agnes M F Wong1. 1. Program in Neurosciences and Mental Health, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Program in Neurosciences and Mental Health, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the test-retest reliability of current methods of inducing the melanopsin-driven postillumination pupil response (PIPR) under hemifield, central-field, and full-field stimulation conditions. METHODS: Pupil response was recorded with an eye tracker in 10 visually normal participants. Light stimuli were presented using a Ganzfeld screen with a custom-built device that allows specific regions of the retina to be stimulated. Blue light stimulation at 400 cd/m(2) intensity was presented for 400 ms to the lower and upper halves of the central 30° fields (hemifields), central 30° field (central-field), and full-field to induce PIPR. Red light full-field stimulation also was presented with the same intensity and duration as a control condition. Test-retest reliability of the PIPR measures was assessed by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of six repetitions for lower and upper hemifield stimulation, and three repetitions for central-field and full-field stimulation. RESULTS: Hemifield, central-field, and full-field blue light stimulation induced increasingly greater PIPR in ascending order, while full-field red light stimulation induced no PIPR. Mean lower and upper hemifield PIPR was highly symmetric. Mean ICC of blue light PIPR was 0.87 for lower hemifield, 0.88 for upper hemifield, 0.95 for central-field, and 0.94 for full-field stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: We validated a new and repeatable method to measure PIPR induced by hemifield, central-field, and full-field light stimulation. Good PIPR measurement reliability was obtained under all conditions. This practical and reliable protocol will facilitate the clinical application of PIPR testing in different disease populations. Copyright 2015 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the test-retest reliability of current methods of inducing the melanopsin-driven postillumination pupil response (PIPR) under hemifield, central-field, and full-field stimulation conditions. METHODS: Pupil response was recorded with an eye tracker in 10 visually normal participants. Light stimuli were presented using a Ganzfeld screen with a custom-built device that allows specific regions of the retina to be stimulated. Blue light stimulation at 400 cd/m(2) intensity was presented for 400 ms to the lower and upper halves of the central 30° fields (hemifields), central 30° field (central-field), and full-field to induce PIPR. Red light full-field stimulation also was presented with the same intensity and duration as a control condition. Test-retest reliability of the PIPR measures was assessed by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of six repetitions for lower and upper hemifield stimulation, and three repetitions for central-field and full-field stimulation. RESULTS: Hemifield, central-field, and full-field blue light stimulation induced increasingly greater PIPR in ascending order, while full-field red light stimulation induced no PIPR. Mean lower and upper hemifield PIPR was highly symmetric. Mean ICC of blue light PIPR was 0.87 for lower hemifield, 0.88 for upper hemifield, 0.95 for central-field, and 0.94 for full-field stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: We validated a new and repeatable method to measure PIPR induced by hemifield, central-field, and full-field light stimulation. Good PIPR measurement reliability was obtained under all conditions. This practical and reliable protocol will facilitate the clinical application of PIPR testing in different disease populations. Copyright 2015 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
Authors: Frederick T Collison; Jason C Park; Gerald A Fishman; Edwin M Stone; J Jason McAnany Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 2.379
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: Jessica Bruijel; Wisse P van der Meijden; Denise Bijlenga; Farangis Dorani; Joris E Coppens; Bart H W Te Lindert; J J Sandra Kooij; Eus J W Van Someren Journal: Biology (Basel) Date: 2016-09-09
Authors: Marija Zivcevska; Shaobo Lei; Alan Blakeman; Daune MacGregor; Herbert C Goltz; Agnes M F Wong Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 3.240