Is pupil diameter influenced by refractive error?

Janis B. Orr, Dirk Seidel, Mhairi Day, Lyle S. Gray

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the relationship between pupil diameter and refractive error and how refractive correction, target luminance, and accommodation modulate this relationship. Methods: Sixty emmetropic, myopic, and hyperopic subjects (age range, 18 to 35 years) viewed an illuminated target (luminance: 10, 100, 200, 400, 1000, 2000, and 4100 cd/m2) within a Badal optical system, at 0 diopters (D) and −3 D vergence, with and without refractive correction. Refractive error was corrected using daily disposable contact lenses. Pupil diameter and accommodation were recorded continuously using a commercially available photorefractor. Results: No significant difference in pupil diameter was found between the refractive groups at 0 D or −3 D target vergence, in the corrected or uncorrected conditions. As expected, pupil diameter decreased with increasing luminance. Target vergence had no significant influence on pupil diameter. In the corrected condition, at 0 D target vergence, the accommodation response was similar in all refractive groups. At −3 D target vergence, the emmetropic and myopic groups accommodated significantly more than the hyperopic group at all luminance levels. There was no correlation between accommodation response and pupil diameter or refractive error in any refractive group. In the uncorrected condition, the accommodation response was significantly greater in the hyperopic group than in the myopic group at all luminance levels, particularly for near viewing. In the hyperopic group, the accommodation response was significantly correlated with refractive error but not pupil diameter. In the myopic group, accommodation response level was not correlated with refractive error or pupil diameter. Conclusions: Refractive error has no influence on pupil diameter, irrespective of refractive correction or accommodative demand. This suggests that the pupil is controlled by the pupillary light reflex and is not driven by retinal blur.

LanguageEnglish
Pages834-840
Number of pages7
JournalOptometry and Vision Science
Volume92
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 31 Jul 2015

Fingerprint

Refractive Errors
Pupil
Pupillary Reflex
Optical Devices
Contact Lenses
Light

Keywords

  • ocular accommodation
  • myopia
  • optical quality
  • pupil
  • refractive errors

Cite this

Orr, Janis B. ; Seidel, Dirk ; Day, Mhairi ; Gray, Lyle S. / Is pupil diameter influenced by refractive error?. In: Optometry and Vision Science. 2015 ; Vol. 92, No. 7. pp. 834-840.
@article{dc6dfa4307ed431a942c0b346e71dd78,
title = "Is pupil diameter influenced by refractive error?",
abstract = "Purpose: To investigate the relationship between pupil diameter and refractive error and how refractive correction, target luminance, and accommodation modulate this relationship. Methods: Sixty emmetropic, myopic, and hyperopic subjects (age range, 18 to 35 years) viewed an illuminated target (luminance: 10, 100, 200, 400, 1000, 2000, and 4100 cd/m2) within a Badal optical system, at 0 diopters (D) and −3 D vergence, with and without refractive correction. Refractive error was corrected using daily disposable contact lenses. Pupil diameter and accommodation were recorded continuously using a commercially available photorefractor. Results: No significant difference in pupil diameter was found between the refractive groups at 0 D or −3 D target vergence, in the corrected or uncorrected conditions. As expected, pupil diameter decreased with increasing luminance. Target vergence had no significant influence on pupil diameter. In the corrected condition, at 0 D target vergence, the accommodation response was similar in all refractive groups. At −3 D target vergence, the emmetropic and myopic groups accommodated significantly more than the hyperopic group at all luminance levels. There was no correlation between accommodation response and pupil diameter or refractive error in any refractive group. In the uncorrected condition, the accommodation response was significantly greater in the hyperopic group than in the myopic group at all luminance levels, particularly for near viewing. In the hyperopic group, the accommodation response was significantly correlated with refractive error but not pupil diameter. In the myopic group, accommodation response level was not correlated with refractive error or pupil diameter. Conclusions: Refractive error has no influence on pupil diameter, irrespective of refractive correction or accommodative demand. This suggests that the pupil is controlled by the pupillary light reflex and is not driven by retinal blur.",
keywords = "ocular accommodation, myopia, optical quality, pupil, refractive errors",
author = "Orr, {Janis B.} and Dirk Seidel and Mhairi Day and Gray, {Lyle S.}",
year = "2015",
month = "7",
day = "31",
doi = "10.1097/OPX.0000000000000627",
language = "English",
volume = "92",
pages = "834--840",
journal = "Optometry and Vision Science",
issn = "1040-5488",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "7",

}

Is pupil diameter influenced by refractive error? / Orr, Janis B.; Seidel, Dirk; Day, Mhairi; Gray, Lyle S.

In: Optometry and Vision Science, Vol. 92, No. 7, 31.07.2015, p. 834-840.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is pupil diameter influenced by refractive error?

AU - Orr, Janis B.

AU - Seidel, Dirk

AU - Day, Mhairi

AU - Gray, Lyle S.

PY - 2015/7/31

Y1 - 2015/7/31

N2 - Purpose: To investigate the relationship between pupil diameter and refractive error and how refractive correction, target luminance, and accommodation modulate this relationship. Methods: Sixty emmetropic, myopic, and hyperopic subjects (age range, 18 to 35 years) viewed an illuminated target (luminance: 10, 100, 200, 400, 1000, 2000, and 4100 cd/m2) within a Badal optical system, at 0 diopters (D) and −3 D vergence, with and without refractive correction. Refractive error was corrected using daily disposable contact lenses. Pupil diameter and accommodation were recorded continuously using a commercially available photorefractor. Results: No significant difference in pupil diameter was found between the refractive groups at 0 D or −3 D target vergence, in the corrected or uncorrected conditions. As expected, pupil diameter decreased with increasing luminance. Target vergence had no significant influence on pupil diameter. In the corrected condition, at 0 D target vergence, the accommodation response was similar in all refractive groups. At −3 D target vergence, the emmetropic and myopic groups accommodated significantly more than the hyperopic group at all luminance levels. There was no correlation between accommodation response and pupil diameter or refractive error in any refractive group. In the uncorrected condition, the accommodation response was significantly greater in the hyperopic group than in the myopic group at all luminance levels, particularly for near viewing. In the hyperopic group, the accommodation response was significantly correlated with refractive error but not pupil diameter. In the myopic group, accommodation response level was not correlated with refractive error or pupil diameter. Conclusions: Refractive error has no influence on pupil diameter, irrespective of refractive correction or accommodative demand. This suggests that the pupil is controlled by the pupillary light reflex and is not driven by retinal blur.

AB - Purpose: To investigate the relationship between pupil diameter and refractive error and how refractive correction, target luminance, and accommodation modulate this relationship. Methods: Sixty emmetropic, myopic, and hyperopic subjects (age range, 18 to 35 years) viewed an illuminated target (luminance: 10, 100, 200, 400, 1000, 2000, and 4100 cd/m2) within a Badal optical system, at 0 diopters (D) and −3 D vergence, with and without refractive correction. Refractive error was corrected using daily disposable contact lenses. Pupil diameter and accommodation were recorded continuously using a commercially available photorefractor. Results: No significant difference in pupil diameter was found between the refractive groups at 0 D or −3 D target vergence, in the corrected or uncorrected conditions. As expected, pupil diameter decreased with increasing luminance. Target vergence had no significant influence on pupil diameter. In the corrected condition, at 0 D target vergence, the accommodation response was similar in all refractive groups. At −3 D target vergence, the emmetropic and myopic groups accommodated significantly more than the hyperopic group at all luminance levels. There was no correlation between accommodation response and pupil diameter or refractive error in any refractive group. In the uncorrected condition, the accommodation response was significantly greater in the hyperopic group than in the myopic group at all luminance levels, particularly for near viewing. In the hyperopic group, the accommodation response was significantly correlated with refractive error but not pupil diameter. In the myopic group, accommodation response level was not correlated with refractive error or pupil diameter. Conclusions: Refractive error has no influence on pupil diameter, irrespective of refractive correction or accommodative demand. This suggests that the pupil is controlled by the pupillary light reflex and is not driven by retinal blur.

KW - ocular accommodation

KW - myopia

KW - optical quality

KW - pupil

KW - refractive errors

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84934296537&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000627

DO - 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000627

M3 - Article

VL - 92

SP - 834

EP - 840

JO - Optometry and Vision Science

T2 - Optometry and Vision Science

JF - Optometry and Vision Science

SN - 1040-5488

IS - 7

ER -