At baseline, the treated and control eyes' mean pupil diameter, hippus energy, dominant hippus frequency, and dominant frequency magnitude were not significantly different within each cohort. Instead, pupil diameter changes within each 2.6-second measurement period were highly correlated between the treated and control eyes (all r > 0.88, P < 0.0001). There was no difference in the number of right eyes (total: 17/36) used between groups (F(2,33) = 2.2, P = 0.127). As the pupil was examined while the subject was instructed to focus at 25 cm (+4.00 diopter [D]) with refractive correction removed, there was a range of true accommodative demands (mean +2.82, SD 2.52 D). However, there was no difference in the refractive errors of the groups (F(2,33) = 1.7, P = 0.200) nor between treated and control eyes (t(20) = 1.03, P = 0.311). Contrariwise, refractive error, and therefore the accommodative demand during fixation, was very highly correlated between each subject's treated and control eye (r = 0.994, P < 0.0001).
Comparing baseline values between the three cohorts showed pupil diameter to be larger at baseline (as expected) in the TD group (6.51 ± 0.72 mm) than both the light groups (PL: 4.02 ± 0.53 mm, TL: 3.64 ± .057 mm, both
P < 0.0001;
Fig. 3A). The pupil diameters of the two light-condition cohorts were not different from each other at baseline (
P = 0.10). The FFT energy was lower in the TD group (0.876 ± 0.363) than the PL (1.944 ± 1.137,
P = 0.003) and TL (2.530 ± 1.465,
P < 0.0001) groups, while the two light groups were not different from each other (
P = 0.157). The dominant FFT frequency was correlated between the eyes at baseline (
r = 0.914,
P < 0.0001) and was not significantly different between paired eyes across the three groups (
F(2,35) = 0.47,
P = 0.969;
Fig. 3B). The magnitude of the dominant hippus frequency was similar between eyes and groups at baseline (
F(2,35) = 0.95,
P = 0.549;
Fig. 3C), and this was also significantly correlated between eyes (
r > 0.99,
P < 0.0001).