Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35166335›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2022

Pupil dilation and constriction in the skate Leucoraja erinacea in a simulated natural light field.

Lydia M Mäthger, Michael J Bok, Jan Liebich, Lucia Sicius, Dan-Eric Nilsson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of experimental biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Lydia M MäthgerMarine Biological Laboratory, Bell Center, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA.
Michael J BokLund Vision Group, Department of Biology, University of Lund, 223 62 Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3169-8523
Jan LiebichWestphalian Institute for Biomimetics, Westphalian University of Applied Sciences, Bocholt 43697, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9621-3777
Lucia SiciusMarine Biological Laboratory, Bell Center, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA.
Dan-Eric NilssonLund Vision Group, Department of Biology, University of Lund, 223 62 Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1028-9314
Lund University · SEFlorida State University · USMarine Biological Laboratory · USSouth Westphalia University of Applied Sciences · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The skate Leucoraja erinacea has an elaborately shaped pupil, whose characteristics and functions have received little attention. The goal of our study was to investigate the pupil response in relation to natural ambient light intensities. First, we took a recently developed sensory-ecological approach, which gave us a tool for creating a controlled light environment for behavioural work: during a field survey, we collected a series of calibrated natural habitat images from the perspective of the skates' eyes. From these images, we derived a vertical illumination profile using custom-written software for quantification of the environmental light field (ELF). After collecting and analysing these natural light field data, we created an illumination set-up in the laboratory, which closely simulated the natural vertical light gradient that skates experience in the wild and tested the light responsiveness - in particular the extent of dilation - of the skate pupil to controlled changes in this simulated light field. Additionally, we measured pupillary dilation and constriction speeds. Our results confirm that the skate pupil changes from nearly circular under low light to a series of small triangular apertures under bright light. A linear regression analysis showed a trend towards smaller skates having a smaller dynamic range of pupil area (dilation versus constriction ratio around 4-fold), and larger skates showing larger ranges (around 10- to 20-fold). Dilation took longer than constriction (between 30 and 45 min for dilation; less than 20 min for constriction), and there was considerable individual variation in dilation/constriction time. We discuss our findings in terms of the visual ecology of L. erinacea and consider the importance of accurately simulating natural light fields in the laboratory.

Indexed as

PupilSkates, FishAnimalsConstrictionLightPhotic StimulationBatoidElasmobranchELFEnvironmental light fieldVision

Identifiers

PMID35166335
PMCPMC10215813
OpenAlexW4213299162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.