ArticleInternational ophthalmology2022
Effect of central and peripheral cone- and rod-specific stimulation on the pupillary light reflex.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influencing Factors on Pupillary Light Responses as a Biomarker for Local Retinal Function in a Large Normative Cohort.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Central retina plays a decisive role in the suppression of pupillary escape.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the effect of central and peripheral stimulation on the pupillary light reflex. The aim was to detect possible differences between cone- and rod-driven reactions.
methodsRelative maximal pupil constriction amplitude (relMCA) and latency to constriction onset (latency) to cone- and rod-specific stimuli of 30 healthy participants (24 ± 5 years (standard deviation)) were measured using chromatic pupil campimetry. Cone- and rod-specific stimuli had different intensities and wavelengths according to the Standards in Pupillography. Five filled circles with radii of 3°, 5°, 10°, 20° and 40° and four rings with a constant outer radius of 40° and inner radii of 3°, 5°, 10° and 20° were used as stimuli.
resultsFor cone-and rod-specific stimuli, relMCA increased with the stimulus area for both, circles and rings. However, increasing the area of a cone-specific ring by minimizing its inner radius with constant outer radius increased relMCA significantly stronger than the same did for a rod-specific ring. For cones and rods, a circle stimulus with a radius of 40° created a lower relMCA than the summation of the relMCAs to the corresponding ring and circle stimuli which combined create a 40° circle-stimulus. Latency was longer for rods than for cones. It decreased with increasing stimulus area for circle stimuli while it stayed nearly constant with increasing ring stimulus area for cone- and rod-specific stimuli.
conclusionThe effect of central stimulation on relMCA is more dominant for cone-specific stimuli than for rod-specific stimuli while latency dynamics are similar for both conditions.
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.