June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
How Does Increasing Ocular Surface Stimulation Affect Blinking?
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Ziwei Wu
    Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
  • Carolyn Begley
    Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
  • Ping Situ
    Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
  • Adam Winkeler
    Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
  • Jun Zhang
    Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
  • Trefford Simpson
    Optometry and Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 4354. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Ziwei Wu, Carolyn Begley, Ping Situ, Adam Winkeler, Jun Zhang, Trefford Simpson; How Does Increasing Ocular Surface Stimulation Affect Blinking?. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):4354.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 
Purpose
 

Despite the importance of the blink, its control by ocular surface sensory input remains controversial. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that increasing ocular surface stimulation will lead to a significantly increased blink rate (SIBR) that we defined as a blink rate (BR) ≥ 2 standard errors from baseline.

 
Methods
 

To control attention, 10 subjects played a video game (with the screen viewed from 20 cm) while also seated behind a slit lamp biomicroscope. Air flow (AF) was directed toward the central cornea (15mm distance, temperature= 24 Celsius) through a 0.5mm diameter tube. Using an ascending method of limits, the AF producing an approximate SIBR was estimated and then, using a method of constant stimuli 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1 and 1.25 multiples of this estimated AF were presented 3 times each (in random order). BR, interblink interval (IBI) and AF were recorded simultaneously and custom MATLAB programs determined the SIBR for each subject.

 
Results
 

Mean (±SD) airflow to produce a SIBR was 134.9±63.9ml/min (range: 65.5 to 248.8ml/min). There was a linear correlation between AF and BR or IBI (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r= 0.939 and -0.987, respectively). The baseline (AF= 0) BR was 16.5±6.0 blinks/min and the five tested AFs these were 20.3±5.9, 25.8±5.0, 30.0±8.3, 47.0±20.3 and 67.4±27.3 blinks/min. The baseline IBI was 4.5±2.1sec and at the five AFs these were 3.5±1.3, 2.6±0.5, 2.4±0.9, 1.6±0.5 and 1.1±0.4sec. Figure 1 demonstrates the SIBR for one subject.

 
Conclusions
 

These results support the hypothesis that AF stimulation of the ocular surface leads to a SIBR when mental concentration is controlled, and that the increasing stimulation produces a linear dose response at the levels of AF tested. This method may allow examination of individual differences in the ocular surface sensory response to stimulation, which may cause the variation in SIBR among subjects.

 
 
Figure 1: SIBR for one subject. The continuous line represents changes in AF from 0 to 174ml/min and each vertical line in the bottom trace represents a blink over the 4 min trial.
 
Figure 1: SIBR for one subject. The continuous line represents changes in AF from 0 to 174ml/min and each vertical line in the bottom trace represents a blink over the 4 min trial.
 
Keywords: 526 eyelid • 486 cornea: tears/tear film/dry eye • 564 innervation: neural regulation  
×
×

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.

×