2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.07.019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of 2 multiple-measurement infrared pupillometers to determine scotopic pupil diameter

Abstract: There was a high repeatability and agreement in scotopic pupil diameter for repeated measures within each device and measurements between the devices. Differences in variability in scotopic pupil diameter evaluated by the Wilcoxon signed rank test were significant only with the Procyon pupillometer.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…9 Our data indicate that monocular pupillometry either with the Neuroptics or Colvard pupillometer is at least as accurate as using the Procyon. These fi ndings are similar to the studies of Kohnen et al 11 and Michel et al 15 Another problem of the Procyon P3000 is the lack of automated outlier recognition, which makes it neces- Comparison of Three Pupillometers/Schallenberg et al sary to check every measurement to select appropriate frames to be analyzed. Low light-adapted pupil diameter is strongly infl uenced by age.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…9 Our data indicate that monocular pupillometry either with the Neuroptics or Colvard pupillometer is at least as accurate as using the Procyon. These fi ndings are similar to the studies of Kohnen et al 11 and Michel et al 15 Another problem of the Procyon P3000 is the lack of automated outlier recognition, which makes it neces- Comparison of Three Pupillometers/Schallenberg et al sary to check every measurement to select appropriate frames to be analyzed. Low light-adapted pupil diameter is strongly infl uenced by age.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Good correlation has also been found in comparison to other digital pupillometers (Michel et al, 2006). Taylor et al (2003) studied more than 2,432 paired pupillometry measurements under a variety of normal and clinical conditions and concluded the Forsite was "a reliable technology capable of providing repetitive data on quantitative pupillary function in states of health and disease."…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…There is a large variation in the pupil size noted in the literature . This can be due to multiple factors including, but not limited to, age, illumination level, field of illumination, binocular versus uniocular stimulation and autonomic state.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] There is a large variation in the pupil size noted in the literature. 10,11,31,32 This can be due to multiple factors including, but not limited to, age, illumination level, field of illumination, binocular versus uniocular stimulation and autonomic state. There have been multiple attempts to create equations to predict the light-adapted pupil size.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%