English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose To assess the effect of central and peripheral stimulation on the pupillary light reflex. The aim was to detect possible differences between cone- and rod-driven reactions. Methods Relative maximal pupil constriction amplitude (relMCA) and latency to constriction onset (latency) to cone- and rod-specific stimuli of 30 healthy participants (24 ± 5 years (standard deviation)) were measured using chromatic pupil campimetry. Cone- and rod-specific stimuli had different intensities and wavelengths according to the Standards in Pupillography. Five filled circles with radii of 3°, 5°, 10°, 20° and 40° and four rings with a constant outer radius of 40° and inner radii of 3°, 5°, 10° and 20° were used as stimuli. Results For cone-and rod-specific stimuli, relMCA increased with the stimulus area for both, circles and rings. However, increasing the area of a cone-specific ring by minimizing its inner radius with constant outer radius increased relMCA significantly stronger than the same did for a rod-specific ring. For cones and rods, a circle stimulus with a radius of 40° created a lower relMCA than the summation of the relMCAs to the corresponding ring and circle stimuli which combined create a 40° circle-stimulus. Latency was longer for rods than for cones. It decreased with increasing stimulus area for circle stimuli while it stayed nearly constant with increasing ring stimulus area for cone- and rod-specific stimuli. Conclusion The effect of central stimulation on relMCA is more dominant for cone-specific stimuli than for rod-specific stimuli while latency dynamics are similar for both conditions.

Effect of central and peripheral cone- and rod-specific stimulation on the pupillary light reflex