June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Nonlinear Pupil Responses to Rod and Cone Inputs
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Dingcai Cao
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL
  • Pablo Barrionuevo
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL
  • Nathaniel Nicandro
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL
  • J Jason McAnany
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL
  • Andrew Zele
    Optometry and Vision Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
  • Paul Gamlin
    Vision Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Dingcai Cao, None; Pablo Barrionuevo, None; Nathaniel Nicandro, None; J Jason McAnany, None; Andrew Zele, None; Paul Gamlin, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 2674. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Dingcai Cao, Pablo Barrionuevo, Nathaniel Nicandro, J Jason McAnany, Andrew Zele, Paul Gamlin; Nonlinear Pupil Responses to Rod and Cone Inputs. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):2674. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: To determine the loci of nonlinear processes in pupil responses to rod and cone inputs

Methods: A four-primary photostimulating method was implemented in a Ganzfeld (Diagnosys ColorDome) to generate rod or cone isolating stimuli at 0.13 and 1.0 photopic cd/m2 (or 0.10 and 0.82 scotopic cd/m2). The stimuli were modulated according to a single sinusoidal waveform (single sinewave condition, 12% Michelson contrast) at one temporal frequency of 4, 5, 8 or 9 Hz, or to the sum of two sinusoidal waveforms at different frequencies (beat condition, frequency pair 4+5 Hz, or 8+9 Hz, generating a beat frequency of 1 Hz). The component frequencies were chosen to minimize the melanopsin photoresponse of ipRGC such that pupil response was primarily driven by photoreceptor inputs. Each modulation was either the rod or cone isolating modulation. The pupil sizes were recorded using an Eyelink II (SR Research) eyetracker in three observers. Fourier analysis was used to derive the amplitudes and phases of the pupil responses.

Results: At both light levels, the pupil response to the single sinewave modulation that isolated rod or cone excitations was minimal at each component frequency. For the beat condition, when modulation was restricted to a single photoreceptor type, there was a pronounced pupil response to the beat frequency (1Hz) for the 4+5 Hz frequency pair but not for the 8+9Hz frequency pair for all three observers. However, when one component modulated rod excitations and the other component modulated cone excitations, there was no response to the beat frequency for two observers.

Conclusions: There is nonlinearity in the pupil response to rod and cone inputs at mesopic light levels. Finding a beat response for modulation components restricted to a single photoreceptor type, but not for components with two photoreceptor types, suggests that the location of nonlinear processing in the pupil response occurs at a site earlier than where the rod and cone signals are combined, that is, at the photoreceptor level.

Keywords: 648 photoreceptors • 668 pupillary reflex • 730 temporal vision  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×