Paul Richter1, Helmut Wilhelm2, Tobias Peters2, Holger Luedtke2, Anne Kurtenbach2, Herbert Jaegle3, Barbara Wilhelm2. 1. Pupil Research Group, Centre for Ophthalmology, University Eye Hospital, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Strasse 7, D-72076, Tuebingen, Germany. paul.richter@med.uni-tuebingen.de. 2. Pupil Research Group, Centre for Ophthalmology, University Eye Hospital, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Strasse 7, D-72076, Tuebingen, Germany. 3. Clinic for Ophthalmology, University Hospital Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the chromatic pupillary light responses (PLR) in healthy subjects with those from patients with diseases of the outer or inner retina under various stimulus conditions, and to ascertain the parameters required to optimally distinguish between disease and control groups. METHODS: Fifteen patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP), 19 patients with optic nerve disease (ON), and 16 healthy subjects were enrolled in this prospective study. ON included optic neuritis (NNO) and non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). For each subject, the PLR was recorded, to red, yellow, green, and blue stimuli for durations of 4 and 12 s, and for stimulus intensities of 4 lx and 28 lx. RESULTS: Comparison between control and RP or ON patient results showed that responses after stimulus onset were significantly different for most stimulus conditions, but the post-stimulus amplitudes at 3 s and 7 s after light extinction were not. On the other hand, the difference between the ON and RP groups was significant only for post-stimuli time-points and only for blue stimuli. Differences between responses to blue and red were significantly different, predominantly at post stimulus time-points. A ROC analysis revealed that the maximal constriction amplitudes to a 4 lx, 4 s yellow stimulus are significantly different in ON vs RP patients, and the responses to a 4 s, 28 lx blue stimulus at 7 s post-stimulus are significantly different in controls vs ON vs RP patients with a high specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Pupillary light responses to blue light in healthy, RP, and ON subjects are significantly different from one another. The optimal stimuli for future protocols was found to be a 4 s blue stimulus at 28 lx, and a 4 s yellow stimulus at 4 lx.
PURPOSE: To compare the chromatic pupillary light responses (PLR) in healthy subjects with those from patients with diseases of the outer or inner retina under various stimulus conditions, and to ascertain the parameters required to optimally distinguish between disease and control groups. METHODS: Fifteen patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP), 19 patients with optic nerve disease (ON), and 16 healthy subjects were enrolled in this prospective study. ON included optic neuritis (NNO) and non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). For each subject, the PLR was recorded, to red, yellow, green, and blue stimuli for durations of 4 and 12 s, and for stimulus intensities of 4 lx and 28 lx. RESULTS: Comparison between control and RP or ON patient results showed that responses after stimulus onset were significantly different for most stimulus conditions, but the post-stimulus amplitudes at 3 s and 7 s after light extinction were not. On the other hand, the difference between the ON and RP groups was significant only for post-stimuli time-points and only for blue stimuli. Differences between responses to blue and red were significantly different, predominantly at post stimulus time-points. A ROC analysis revealed that the maximal constriction amplitudes to a 4 lx, 4 s yellow stimulus are significantly different in ON vs RP patients, and the responses to a 4 s, 28 lx blue stimulus at 7 s post-stimulus are significantly different in controls vs ON vs RP patients with a high specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Pupillary light responses to blue light in healthy, RP, and ON subjects are significantly different from one another. The optimal stimuli for future protocols was found to be a 4 s blue stimulus at 28 lx, and a 4 s yellow stimulus at 4 lx.
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: Randy Kardon; Susan C Anderson; Tina G Damarjian; Elizabeth M Grace; Edwin Stone; Aki Kawasaki Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Michael A Belenky; Cynthia A Smeraski; Ignacio Provencio; Patricia J Sollars; Gary E Pickard Journal: J Comp Neurol Date: 2003-06-02 Impact factor: 3.215
Authors: Albert M Maguire; Katherine A High; Alberto Auricchio; J Fraser Wright; Eric A Pierce; Francesco Testa; Federico Mingozzi; Jeannette L Bennicelli; Gui-shuang Ying; Settimio Rossi; Ann Fulton; Kathleen A Marshall; Sandro Banfi; Daniel C Chung; Jessica I W Morgan; Bernd Hauck; Olga Zelenaia; Xiaosong Zhu; Leslie Raffini; Frauke Coppieters; Elfride De Baere; Kenneth S Shindler; Nicholas J Volpe; Enrico M Surace; Carmela Acerra; Arkady Lyubarsky; T Michael Redmond; Edwin Stone; Junwei Sun; Jennifer Wellman McDonnell; Bart P Leroy; Francesca Simonelli; Jean Bennett Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-10-23 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Eberhart Zrenner; Karl Ulrich Bartz-Schmidt; Heval Benav; Dorothea Besch; Anna Bruckmann; Veit-Peter Gabel; Florian Gekeler; Udo Greppmaier; Alex Harscher; Steffen Kibbel; Johannes Koch; Akos Kusnyerik; Tobias Peters; Katarina Stingl; Helmut Sachs; Alfred Stett; Peter Szurman; Barbara Wilhelm; Robert Wilke Journal: Proc Biol Sci Date: 2010-11-03 Impact factor: 5.349
Authors: Arun K Krishnan; Samuel G Jacobson; Alejandro J Roman; Bhavya S Iyer; Alexandra V Garafalo; Elise Héon; Artur V Cideciyan Journal: Vision Res Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Jason Charng; Samuel G Jacobson; Elise Heon; Alejandro J Roman; David B McGuigan; Rebecca Sheplock; Mychajlo S Kosyk; Malgorzata Swider; Artur V Cideciyan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 4.799