April 2014
Volume 55, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2014
The Flashing Light-Induced Pupil Response (FLIPR) Glaucoma Study
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Patrick Shorter
    College of Optometry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
  • Deniz Eren
    Havener Eye Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
  • Shelly G Jain
    Havener Eye Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
  • Andrew T E Hartwick
    College of Optometry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Patrick Shorter, None; Deniz Eren, None; Shelly Jain, None; Andrew Hartwick, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2014, Vol.55, 5608. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Patrick Shorter, Deniz Eren, Shelly G Jain, Andrew T E Hartwick; The Flashing Light-Induced Pupil Response (FLIPR) Glaucoma Study. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):5608.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: Rods, cones and intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) contribute to the pupillary light reflex (PLR). ipRGCs exhibit unique temporal properties that enable their contribution to the PLR to be isolated using flickering light stimuli. Our aim was to quantify the pupil response to flashing red and blue lights in individuals with glaucoma to determine whether a flicker-based pupil test can detect altered ipRGC function.

Methods: Pupil responses to flashing (0.1 Hz) red and blue lights (2.6 x 1012 and 2.7 x 1012 phots/s/cm2 @ 608 and 448 nm, respectively) were recorded in 11 subjects with moderate to severe glaucoma and 9 healthy controls using the RAPDx pupillometer. The study consisted of 3 tests: 1) alternating red and blue lights, applied OU for 2 min (ALT OU); 2) red light only, applied OU for 1 min (RED OU); and 3) blue light only, applied OU for 1 min (BLUE OU). Changes in normalized pupil size were measured 4 times per sec. Amplitudes of light-evoked pupil fluctuation were determined using Fourier transforms.

Results: In comparing pupil responses to the RED OU and BLUE OU stimuli, we calculated the average difference (blue minus red) of normalized pupil size per time point. This difference was 7.2% ± 2.7 SEM in the glaucoma subjects and 10.4 ± 1.9% in the controls, with no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.40). The amplitudes of pupil fluctuation evoked by the two monochromatic stimuli (RED OU vs. BLUE OU) were also not significantly different (P>0.05) in either subject group. However, in the glaucoma subjects, the pupil fluctuation evoked by the red light was significantly (P=0.01) larger when presented in the ALT OU stimulus, relative to RED OU. In contrast, there was no difference (P=0.43) between these red light-elicited amplitudes in the controls. The difference in pupil size between the two colored lights (blue minus red) in the ALT OU stimulus was significantly (P=0.02) altered in the glaucoma subjects (-0.04 ± 0.02%), compared to controls (+0.01 ± 0.01%).

Conclusions: Using a commercial pupillometer, we detected no change in the pupil responses to flickering monochromatic red versus blue lights in subjects with glaucoma. However, the pupil responses to an alternating blue and red flashing stimulus were significantly different in subjects with glaucoma, relative to controls. We propose that the altered responses elicited by this novel pupil test reflect changed ipRGC function.

Keywords: 668 pupillary reflex • 648 photoreceptors • 531 ganglion cells  

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.