Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Abstract Purpose To measure the pupil response to pulses of melanopsin-directed contrast, and compare this response to those evoked by cone-directed contrast and spectrally-narrowband stimuli. Methods 3-second unipolar pulses were used to elicit pupil responses in human subjects across 3 sessions. Thirty subjects were studied in Session 1, and most returned for Sessions 2 and 3. The stimuli of primary interest were “silent substitution” cone‐ and melanopsin-directed modulations. Red and blue narrowband pulses delivered using the post-illumination pupil response (PIPR) paradigm were also studied. Sessions 1 and 2 were identical, while Session 3 involved modulations around higher radiance backgrounds. The pupil responses were fit by a model whose parameters described response amplitude and temporal shape. Results Group average pupil responses for all stimuli overlapped extensively across Sessions 1 and 2, indicating high reproducibility. Model fits indicate that the response to melanopsin-directed contrast is prolonged relative to that elicited by cone-directed contrast. The group average cone‐ and melanopsin-directed pupil responses from Session 3 were highly similar to those from Sessions 1 and 2, suggesting that these responses are insensitive to background radiance over the range studied. The increase in radiance enhanced persistent pupil constriction to blue light. Conclusions The group average pupil response to stimuli designed through silent substitution provides a reliable probe of the function of a melanopsin-mediated system in humans. As disruption of the melanopsin system may relate to clinical pathology, the reproducibility of response suggests that silent substitution pupillometry can test if melanopsin signals differ between clinical groups.

Original publication

DOI

10.1101/365718

Type

Journal article

Publication Date

09/07/2018