ArticleJournal of vision2011
Pupil responses to near visual demand during human visual development.
Article in Journal of vision, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fluctuations of Steady-State Accommodation Is a Marker for Screening Spasm of Near Reflex.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
- Pupillary Responses Obey Emmert's Law and Co-vary with Autistic Traits.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2021Article
- Spasm of Near Reflex: Objective Assessment of the Near-Triad.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2020Article
- Calibration of the PlusOptix PowerRef 3 with change in viewing distance, adult age and refractive error.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2019Article
- Pupil response components: attention-light interaction in patients with Parinaud's syndrome.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Trying to see, failing to focus: near visual impairment in Down syndrome.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Photorefraction estimates of refractive power varies with the ethnic origin of human eyes.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Empirical variability in the calibration of slope-based eccentric photorefraction.Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Pupil responses of adults to near visual demands are well characterized but those of typically developing infants and children are not. This study determined the following pupil characteristics of infants, children and adults using a PowerRefractor (25 Hz): i) binocular and monocular responses to a cartoon movie that ramped between 80 and 33 cm (20 infants, 20 2-4-yr-olds and 20 adults participated) ii) binocular and monocular response threshold for 0.1 Hz sinusoidal stimuli of 0.25 D, 0.5 D or 0.75 D amplitude (33 infants and 8 adults participated) iii) steady-state stability of pupil responses at 80 cms (8 infants and 8 adults participated). The change in pupil diameter with viewing distance (Δpd) was significantly smaller in infants and 2-4-yr-olds than in adults (p < 0.001) and significantly smaller under monocular than binocular conditions (p<0.001). The 0.75 D sinusoidal stimulus elicited a significant binocular pupillary response in infants and a significant binocular and monocular pupillary response in adults. Steady-state pupillary fluctuations were similar in infants and adults (p = 0.25). The results suggest that the contribution of pupil size to changes in retinal image quality when tracking slow moving objects may be smaller during development than in adulthood. Smaller monocular Δpd reflects the importance of binocular cues in driving near-pupillary responses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.