Do static and dynamic pupillary parameters differ according to childhood, adulthood, and old age? A quantitative study in healthy volunteers

Biçer, Gamze Yıldırım; Zor, Kürşad Ramazan; Küçük, Erkut

doi:10.4103/ijo.ijo_1254_22

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mesopic pupil diameter values are generally affected by variables such as age, sex, refraction and device used for measurement. [22][23][24] Although the pupil diameter measurement results are contradictory in sex comparisons, values are generally close to each other. [25,26] Mesopic pupil diameter decreases with age.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

White to white cornea diameter and mesopic pupil size in patients with keratoconus

Özçelik,

Yılmaz,

Gümüş

2022

Anatomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Keratoconus is characterized by the abnormal cornea structure and it is manifested by changes in anterior segment parameters responsible for ocular high order spherical aberrations. The aim of the study is to investigate cornea horizontal white to white diameter and mesopic pupil size in patients with keratoconus. Methods: The medical records of each participant were reviewed. The horizontal white to white cornea diameter and the mesopic pupil size were measured with the Sirius Topography System in 215 eyes of 123 subjects. Two groups were formed, the first group included 113 eyes with keratoconus and the second group is composed of 102 healthy eyes. Differences in sex, age, cornea diameter and mesopic pupil size between two groups were analyzed statistically. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in sex and age distribution between the two groups (p>0.05). The average horizontal corneal diameter was 11.98±0.33 mm in the 1st group and 11.81±0.24 mm in group 2. It was significantly higher in patients with keratoconus than in healthy subjects. (p=0.04) The mean mesopic pupil size was 3.64±0.12 mm in group 1 and it was 3.73±0.14 mm in group 2. The mesopic pupil size was significantly higher in healthy subjects than in patients with keratoconus (p=0.03). Conclusion: This study showed that while the horizontal white to white diameter of the cornea increases in keratoconus, the mesopic pupil size decreases. In clinical practice, these two parameters should be considered in treatment procedures of patients with keratoconus.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

White to white cornea diameter and mesopic pupil size in patients with keratoconus

Özçelik,

Yılmaz,

Gümüş

2022

Anatomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Baseline pupil diameter increases throughout childhood, peaking in adolescence [ 22 – 24 ], then slowly decreases throughout adulthood [ 10 , 25 , 26 ]. In adults age 21–70 years, a larger baseline pupil diameter was associated with a larger PIPR 6 s after exposure to blue light [ 25 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in the pupillary responses to evening light between children and adolescents

Hartstein,

LeBourgeois,

Durniak

et al. 2024

J Physiol Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In the mammalian retina, intrinsically-photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGC) detect light and integrate signals from rods and cones to drive multiple non-visual functions including circadian entrainment and the pupillary light response (PLR). Non-visual photoreception and consequently non-visual sensitivity to light may change across child development. The PLR represents a quick and reliable method for examining non-visual responses to light in children. The purpose of this study was to assess differences in the PLRs to blue and red stimuli, measured one hour prior to bedtime, between children and adolescents. Methods Forty healthy participants (8–9 years, n = 21; 15–16 years, n = 19) completed a PLR assessment 1 h before their habitual bedtime. After a 1 h dim-light adaptation period (< 1 lx), baseline pupil diameter was measured in darkness for 30 s, followed by a 10 s exposure to 3.0 × 1013 photons/cm2/s of either red (627 nm) or blue (459 nm) light, and a 40 s recovery in darkness to assess pupillary re-dilation. Subsequently, participants underwent 7 min of dim-light re-adaptation followed by an exposure to the other light condition. Lights were counterbalanced across participants. Results Across both age groups, maximum pupil constriction was significantly greater (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.48) and more sustained (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.41) during exposure to blue compared to red light. For adolescents, the post-illumination pupillary response (PIPR), a hallmark of melanopsin function, was larger after blue compared with red light (p = 0.02, d = 0.60). This difference was not observed in children. Across light exposures, children had larger phasic (p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.20) and maximal (p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.22) pupil constrictions compared to adolescents. Conclusions Blue light elicited a greater and more sustained pupillary response than red light in children and adolescents. However, the overall amplitude of the rod/cone-driven phasic response was greater in children than in adolescents. Our findings using the PLR highlight a higher sensitivity to evening light in children compared to adolescents, and continued maturation of the human non-visual photoreception/system throughout development.

show abstract

Differences in the Pupillary Responses to Evening Light between Children and Adolescents

Hartstein,

LeBourgeois,

Durniak

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To assess differences in the pupillary light responses (PLRs) to blue and red evening lights between children and adolescents. Methods: Forty healthy participants (8-9 years, n=21; 15-16 years, n=19) completed a PLR assessment 1 h before their habitual bedtime. After a 1 h dim-light adaptation period (<1 lux), baseline pupil diameter was measured in darkness for 30 s, followed by a 10 s exposure to 3.0x1013 photons/cm2/s of either red (627 nm) or blue (459 nm) light, and a 40 s recovery in darkness to assess pupillary re-dilation. Subsequently, participants underwent 7 min of dim-light re-adaptation followed by an exposure to the other light condition. Lights were counterbalanced across participants. Results: Across both age groups, maximum pupil constriction was significantly greater (p< 0.001, ηp2=0.48) and more sustained (p< 0.001, ηp2=0.41) during exposure to blue compared to red light. For adolescents, the post-illumination pupillary response (PIPR), a hallmark of melanopsin function, was larger after blue compared with red light (p= 0.02, d=0.60). This difference was not observed in children. Across light exposures, children had larger phasic (p< 0.01, ηp2=0.20) and maximal (p< 0.01, ηp2=0.22) pupil constrictions compared to adolescents. Conclusions: Blue light elicited a greater and more sustained pupillary response than red light across participants. However, the overall amplitude of the rod/cone-driven phasic response was greater in children than in adolescents. Our findings using the PLR highlight a higher sensitivity to evening light in children compared to adolescents, and continued maturation of the human non-visual photoreception/system throughout development.

show abstract

Do static and dynamic pupillary parameters differ according to childhood, adulthood, and old age? A quantitative study in healthy volunteers

Cited by 3 publications

References 26 publications

White to white cornea diameter and mesopic pupil size in patients with keratoconus

White to white cornea diameter and mesopic pupil size in patients with keratoconus

Differences in the pupillary responses to evening light between children and adolescents

Differences in the Pupillary Responses to Evening Light between Children and Adolescents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About