Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Differences in the pupillary responses to evening light between children and adolescents
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Differences in the pupillary responses to evening light between children and adolescents
Do you wish to request the book?
Differences in the pupillary responses to evening light between children and adolescents
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Differences in the pupillary responses to evening light between children and adolescents
2024
Overview
Background
In the mammalian retina, intrinsically-photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGC) detect light and integrate signals from rods and cones to drive multiple non-visual functions including circadian entrainment and the pupillary light response (PLR). Non-visual photoreception and consequently non-visual sensitivity to light may change across child development. The PLR represents a quick and reliable method for examining non-visual responses to light in children. The purpose of this study was to assess differences in the PLRs to blue and red stimuli, measured one hour prior to bedtime, between children and adolescents.
Methods
Forty healthy participants (8–9 years,
n
= 21; 15–16 years,
n
= 19) completed a PLR assessment 1 h before their habitual bedtime. After a 1 h dim-light adaptation period (< 1 lx), baseline pupil diameter was measured in darkness for 30 s, followed by a 10 s exposure to 3.0 × 10
13
photons/cm
2
/s of either red (627 nm) or blue (459 nm) light, and a 40 s recovery in darkness to assess pupillary re-dilation. Subsequently, participants underwent 7 min of dim-light re-adaptation followed by an exposure to the other light condition. Lights were counterbalanced across participants.
Results
Across both age groups, maximum pupil constriction was significantly greater (
p
< 0.001, η
p
2
= 0.48) and more sustained (
p
< 0.001, η
p
2
= 0.41) during exposure to blue compared to red light. For adolescents, the post-illumination pupillary response (PIPR), a hallmark of melanopsin function, was larger after blue compared with red light (
p
= 0.02, d = 0.60). This difference was not observed in children. Across light exposures, children had larger phasic (
p
< 0.01, η
p
2
= 0.20) and maximal (
p
< 0.01, η
p
2
= 0.22) pupil constrictions compared to adolescents.
Conclusions
Blue light elicited a greater and more sustained pupillary response than red light in children and adolescents. However, the overall amplitude of the rod/cone-driven phasic response was greater in children than in adolescents. Our findings using the PLR highlight a higher sensitivity to evening light in children compared to adolescents, and continued maturation of the human non-visual photoreception/system throughout development.
Publisher
BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,BMC
