Variation in pupillomotor responsiveness with mean pupil size

Semmlow, John L.; Hansmann, Douglas R.; Stark, Lawrence

doi:10.1016/0042-6989(75)90064-4

Cited by 38 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These drugs also have marked effects on behavioural measures such as alertness which could affect SAP, as does pupil size. It is worth noting that pupil size does not seem to affect pupil response dynamics at least in normal subjects 47 . In the present case we used a normalized pupil constriction amplitude, hence absolute pupil size did not play a part.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Multifocal pupillographic visual field testing in glaucoma

Maddess

Bedford

Goh

et al. 2009

Clinical Exper Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Multifocal pupillographic visual field testing in glaucoma

Maddess

Bedford

Goh

et al. 2009

Clinical Exper Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…23,25 Pupil diameter does not seem to affect pupil response dynamics at least in normal subjects. 39 Diabetic neuropathy is another possible problem; however, we have found that before diabetes affects the iris that afferent defects can be measured in early stage diabetic retinopathy. 25 A detailed discussion of possible drug interactions with mfPOP has been given, 23 however a summary is useful here.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Stimulus Parameters for Multifocal Pupillographic Objective Perimetry

James

Kolic

Bedford

et al. 2012

Journal of Glaucoma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, it is generally thought that accommodation results in pupil contraction (accommodative miosis, e.g. Lowenstein and Loewenfeld, 1969; Semmlow and Stark, 1973; Semmlow et al. , 1975; Loewenfeld, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Age‐related changes in static accommodation and accommodative miosis

Radhakrishnan

Charman

2007

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An attempt was made to explore the validity of the Hess-Gullstrand and Duane-Fincham models of presbyopia development, on the assumption that accommodative miosis could be used as an indicator of ciliary muscle effort. Monocular accommodation response and pupil size were measured as a function of accommodation demand over the range 0-4 D, in 48 normal subjects with ages between 17 and 56 years. The slope of the response/stimulus curve was found to decrease only slowly with age up to about 35 years and then to decline more rapidly. Accommodative miosis per dioptre of accommodation response did not change systematically with age up to about 35 years, this being apparently more in accord with the Hess-Gullstrand model. However, accommodative miosis varied very widely between younger subjects of similar age and accommodative amplitude (from zero to around 1 mm per dioptre of accommodation response for subjects in their twenties). It is concluded that miosis does not necessarily accompany accommodation and that its magnitude is not related in any simple general way to ciliary muscle contraction. Hence it cannot be used to support or refute particular theories of presbyopia.

show abstract

Variation in pupillomotor responsiveness with mean pupil size

Cited by 38 publications

References 17 publications

Multifocal pupillographic visual field testing in glaucoma

Multifocal pupillographic visual field testing in glaucoma

Stimulus Parameters for Multifocal Pupillographic Objective Perimetry

Age‐related changes in static accommodation and accommodative miosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About