The effect of intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell (ipRGC) stimulation on axial length changes to imposed optical defocus in young adults

Purpose: The intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) regulate pupil size and circadian rhythms. Stimulation of the ipRGCs using short-wavelength blue light causes a sustained pupil constriction known as the post-illumination pupil response (PIPR). Here we examined the effects of ipRGC stimulation on axial length changes to imposed optical defocus in young adults.Materials and methodsNearly emmetropic young participants were given either myopic (+3 D, n = 16) or hyperopic (-3 D, n = 17) defocus in their right eye for 2 h. Before and after defocus, a series of axial length measurements for up to 180 s were performed in the right eye using the IOL Master following exposure to 5 s red (625 nm, 3.74 × 1014 photons/cm2/s) and blue (470 nm, 3.29 × 1014 photons/cm2/s) stimuli. The pupil measurements were collected from the left eye to track the ipRGC activity. The 6 s and 30 s PIPR, early and late area under the curve (AUC), and time to return to baseline were calculated.ResultsThe PIPR with blue light was significantly stronger after 2 h of hyperopic defocus as indicated by a lower 6 and 30 s PIPR and a larger early and late AUC (all p<0.05). Short-wavelength ipRGC stimulation also significantly exaggerated the ocular response to hyperopic defocus, causing a significantly greater increase in axial length than that resulting from the hyperopic defocus alone (p = 0.017). Neither wavelength had any effect on axial length with myopic defocus.ConclusionsThese findings suggest an interaction between myopiagenic hyperopic defocus and ipRGC signaling. (AU)

The effect of intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell (ipRGC) stimulation on axial length changes to imposed optical defocus in young adults.

PURPOSE: The intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) regulate pupil size and circadian rhythms. Stimulation of the ipRGCs using short-wavelength blue light causes a sustained pupil constriction known as the post-illumination pupil response (PIPR). Here we examined the effects of ipRGC stimulation on axial length changes to imposed optical defocus in young adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nearly emmetropic young participants were given either myopic (+3 D, n = 16) or hyperopic (-3 D, n = 17) defocus in their right eye for 2 h. Before and after defocus, a series of axial length measurements for up to 180 s were performed in the right eye using the IOL Master following exposure to 5 s red (625 nm, 3.74 × 1014 photons/cm2/s) and blue (470 nm, 3.29 × 1014 photons/cm2/s) stimuli. The pupil measurements were collected from the left eye to track the ipRGC activity. The 6 s and 30 s PIPR, early and late area under the curve (AUC), and time to return to baseline were calculated. RESULTS: The PIPR with blue light was significantly stronger after 2 h of hyperopic defocus as indicated by a lower 6 and 30 s PIPR and a larger early and late AUC (all p<0.05). Short-wavelength ipRGC stimulation also significantly exaggerated the ocular response to hyperopic defocus, causing a significantly greater increase in axial length than that resulting from the hyperopic defocus alone (p = 0.017). Neither wavelength had any effect on axial length with myopic defocus. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest an interaction between myopiagenic hyperopic defocus and ipRGC signaling.

The intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell (ipRGC) mediated pupil response in young adult humans with refractive errors

Purpose: The intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) signal environmental light, with axons projected to the midbrain that control pupil size and circadian rhythms. Post-illumination pupil response (PIPR), a sustained pupil constriction after short-wavelength light stimulation, is an indirect measure of ipRGC activity. Here, we measured the PIPR in young adults with various refractive errors using a custom-made optical system.Methods: PIPR was measured on myopic (−3.50 ± 1.82 D, n = 20) and non-myopic (+0.28 ± 0.23 D, n = 19) participants (mean age, 23.36 ± 3.06 years). The right eye was dilated and presented with long-wavelength (red, 625 nm, 3.68 × 1014 photons/cm2/s) and short-wavelength (blue, 470 nm, 3.24 × 1014 photons/cm2/s) 1 s and 5 s pulses of light, and the consensual response was measured in the left eye for 60 s following light offset. The 6 s and 30 s PIPR and early and late area under the curve (AUC) for 1 and 5 s stimuli were calculated.Results: For most subjects, the 6 s and 30 s PIPR were significantly lower (p < 0.001), and the early and late AUC were significantly larger for 1 s blue light compared to red light (p < 0.001), suggesting a strong ipRGC response. The 5 s blue stimulation induced a slightly stronger melanopsin response, compared to 1 s stimulation with the same wavelength. However, none of the PIPR metrics were different between myopes and non-myopes for either stimulus duration (p > 0.05).Conclusions: We confirm previous research that there is no effect of refractive error on the PIPR. (AU)

The intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell (ipRGC) mediated pupil response in young adult humans with refractive errors.

PURPOSE: The intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) signal environmental light, with axons projected to the midbrain that control pupil size and circadian rhythms. Post-illumination pupil response (PIPR), a sustained pupil constriction after short-wavelength light stimulation, is an indirect measure of ipRGC activity. Here, we measured the PIPR in young adults with various refractive errors using a custom-made optical system. METHODS: PIPR was measured on myopic (-3.50 ± 1.82 D, n = 20) and non-myopic (+0.28 ± 0.23 D, n = 19) participants (mean age, 23.36 ± 3.06 years). The right eye was dilated and presented with long-wavelength (red, 625 nm, 3.68 × 1014 photons/cm2/s) and short-wavelength (blue, 470 nm, 3.24 × 1014 photons/cm2/s) 1 s and 5 s pulses of light, and the consensual response was measured in the left eye for 60 s following light offset. The 6 s and 30 s PIPR and early and late area under the curve (AUC) for 1 and 5 s stimuli were calculated. RESULTS: For most subjects, the 6 s and 30 s PIPR were significantly lower (p < 0.001), and the early and late AUC were significantly larger for 1 s blue light compared to red light (p < 0.001), suggesting a strong ipRGC response. The 5 s blue stimulation induced a slightly stronger melanopsin response, compared to 1 s stimulation with the same wavelength. However, none of the PIPR metrics were different between myopes and non-myopes for either stimulus duration (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We confirm previous research that there is no effect of refractive error on the PIPR.

Scleral contact lens thickness profiles: The relationship between average and centre lens thickness.

PURPOSE: To develop a methodology to reliably determine the thickness profile of scleral contact lenses and examine the relationship between the centre and average lens thickness for a range of lens designs and back vertex powers. METHODS: High-resolution images of 37 scleral trial lenses (Epicon LC, Rose K2 XL and ICD 16.5) were captured using an optical coherence tomographer, and their thickness profiles were generated after correcting for known measurement artefacts. Centre lens thickness values were compared with manual lens gauge measurements, and repeatability was assessed by comparing average thickness values derived from orthogonal meridians of each lens. RESULTS: The imaging technique displayed a high level of agreement with a manual lens gauge for centre thickness measurements; mean difference 5 ±â€¯9 µm (95% LoA -14 to +23 µm), and a very high level of repeatability; mean difference between orthogonal meridians 1 ±â€¯3 µm (95% LoA -6 to +8 µm). Lens thickness profiles varied between lens designs, with distance from the lens centre, and with back vertex power. Increasing back vertex powers resulted in a significant over or underestimation (up to 33% for high minus powers) of the average lens thickness based on the centre lens thickness. CONCLUSIONS: The thickness of scleral contact lenses varies with distance from the lens centre and the back vertex power. The average lens thickness value derived from the entire lens provides a more appropriate representation of the true lens thickness and should be used in the calculation of scleral lens oxygen transmissibility.

The influence of centre thickness on miniscleral lens flexure.

PURPOSE: To examine the influence of centre thickness upon miniscleral lens flexure and the association between the magnitude of in-vivo lens flexure and scleral toricity. METHODS: In-vivo lens flexure was measured using a videokeratoscope in 9 healthy young participants (25 ±â€¯4 years) with normal corneae fitted with ICD 16.5 miniscleral lenses (hexafocon B material) with centre thicknesses of 150, 250, and 350 µm. Scleral toricity was determined from sagittal height data over a 15 mm chord obtained from a corneo-scleral topographer. RESULTS: On average, lens flexure increased with decreasing centre thickness, but remained <0.50 D (mean increase <0.25 D, p = 0.63). Scleral toricity was positively correlated with in-vivo flexure for the 150 µm (r = 0.77, p = 0.02) and 250 µm (r = 0.72, p = 0.03) lenses. Using a group mean split, eyes with >200 µm scleral toricity exhibited greater in-vivo flexure than eyes with <200 µm (0.40 D more, averaged across all lenses, p = 0.02), and this effect was greatest for the 150 µm lens (0.61 D more, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing the centre thickness from 350 µm to 150 µm resulted in <0.25 D increase in lens flexure for a high Dk and low modulus material. Scleral toricity >200 µm was associated with more in-vivo lens flexure. When intentionally reducing scleral lens centre thickness to enhance oxygen transmissibility, customised back surface designs may be required to minimise in-vivo flexure in eyes with >200 µm scleral toricity at a 15 mm chord.