Garen V Vartanian1, Xiwu Zhao2, Kwoon Y Wong3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States 2Graduate Program in Macromolecular Science & Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States. 2. Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States. 3. Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States 3Department of Molecular, Cellular & Developmental Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) mediate nonimage-forming visual functions such as pupillary constriction and circadian photoentrainment. Optimizing daytime nonimage-forming photostimulation has health benefits. We aimed to enhance ipRGC excitation using flickering instead of steady light. METHODS: Human subjects were tested with a three-dimensional matrix of flickering 463-nm stimuli: three photon counts (13.7, 14.7 and 15.7 log photons cm(-2)), three duty cycles (12%, 47%, and 93%) and seven flicker frequencies (0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 7 Hz). Steady-state pupil constrictions were measured. RESULTS: Among stimuli containing 13.7 log photons cm-2, the one flickering at 2 Hz with a 12% duty cycle evoked the greatest pupil constriction of 48% ± 4%, 71% greater than that evoked by an equal-intensity (12.3 log photons cm(-2) s(-1)) continuous light. This frequency and duty cycle were also best for 14.7 log photons cm-2 stimuli, inducing a 58% ± 4% constriction which was 38% more than that caused by an equal-intensity (13.3 log photons cm(-2) s(-1)) constant light. For 15.7 log photons cm-2 stimuli, the 1-Hz, 47% duty cycle flicker was optimal although it evoked the same constriction as the best 14.7 log photons cm(-2) flicker. CONCLUSIONS: Pupillary constriction depends on flicker frequency and duty cycle besides intensity. Among the stimuli tested, the one with the lowest photon count inducing a maximal response is 13.3 log photons cm(-2) s(-1) flickering at 2 Hz with 12% duty cycle. Our data could guide the design of healthier architectural lighting and better phototherapy devices for treating seasonal affective disorder and jet lag.
PURPOSE: Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) mediate nonimage-forming visual functions such as pupillary constriction and circadian photoentrainment. Optimizing daytime nonimage-forming photostimulation has health benefits. We aimed to enhance ipRGC excitation using flickering instead of steady light. METHODS:Human subjects were tested with a three-dimensional matrix of flickering 463-nm stimuli: three photon counts (13.7, 14.7 and 15.7 log photons cm(-2)), three duty cycles (12%, 47%, and 93%) and seven flicker frequencies (0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 7 Hz). Steady-state pupil constrictions were measured. RESULTS: Among stimuli containing 13.7 log photons cm-2, the one flickering at 2 Hz with a 12% duty cycle evoked the greatest pupil constriction of 48% ± 4%, 71% greater than that evoked by an equal-intensity (12.3 log photons cm(-2) s(-1)) continuous light. This frequency and duty cycle were also best for 14.7 log photons cm-2 stimuli, inducing a 58% ± 4% constriction which was 38% more than that caused by an equal-intensity (13.3 log photons cm(-2) s(-1)) constant light. For 15.7 log photons cm-2 stimuli, the 1-Hz, 47% duty cycle flicker was optimal although it evoked the same constriction as the best 14.7 log photons cm(-2) flicker. CONCLUSIONS:Pupillary constriction depends on flicker frequency and duty cycle besides intensity. Among the stimuli tested, the one with the lowest photon count inducing a maximal response is 13.3 log photons cm(-2) s(-1) flickering at 2 Hz with 12% duty cycle. Our data could guide the design of healthier architectural lighting and better phototherapy devices for treating seasonal affective disorder and jet lag.
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: Aaron N Reifler; Andrew P Chervenak; Michael E Dolikian; Brian A Benenati; Benjamin S Meyers; Zachary D Demertzis; Andrew M Lynch; Benjamin Y Li; Rebecca D Wachter; Fady S Abufarha; Eden A Dulka; Weston Pack; Xiwu Zhao; Kwoon Y Wong Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Jennifer J Hunter; Jessica I W Morgan; William H Merigan; David H Sliney; Janet R Sparrow; David R Williams Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2011-11-10 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: D W Rimmer; D B Boivin; T L Shanahan; R E Kronauer; J F Duffy; C A Czeisler Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: Christian Cajochen; Mirjam Münch; Szymon Kobialka; Kurt Kräuchi; Roland Steiner; Peter Oelhafen; Selim Orgül; Anna Wirz-Justice Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2004-12-07 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: S Hattar; R J Lucas; N Mrosovsky; S Thompson; R H Douglas; M W Hankins; J Lem; M Biel; F Hofmann; R G Foster; K-W Yau Journal: Nature Date: 2003-06-15 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Ludovic S Mure; Pierre-Loic Cornut; Camille Rieux; Elise Drouyer; Philippe Denis; Claude Gronfier; Howard M Cooper Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-06-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Didem Göz; Keith Studholme; Douglas A Lappi; Mark D Rollag; Ignacio Provencio; Lawrence P Morin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-09-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Olivia J Walch; L Samantha Zhang; Aaron N Reifler; Michael E Dolikian; Daniel B Forger; Kwoon Y Wong Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2015-09-23 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Tom Woelders; Thomas Leenheers; Marijke C M Gordijn; Roelof A Hut; Domien G M Beersma; Emma J Wams Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Joshua W Mouland; Adam R Stinchcombe; Daniel B Forger; Timothy M Brown; Robert J Lucas Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 10.834