Advertisement

The interaction of pupil response with the vergence system

  • Moritz Feil
  • Barbara Moser
  • Mathias AbeggEmail author
Neurophthalmology

Abstract

Purpose

A gaze shift from a target at distance to a target at near leads to pupillary constriction. The regulation of this pupillary near response is ill known. We investigated the impact of accommodation, convergence, and proximity on the pupillary diameter.

Methods

We recorded pupil size and vergence eye movements with the use of an infrared eye tracker. We determined the pupillary response in four conditions: (1) after a gaze shift from far to near without accommodation, (2) after a gaze shift from far to near with neither accommodation nor convergence, (3) after accommodation alone, and (4) after accommodation with convergence without a gaze shift to near. These responses were compared to the pupil response of a full near response and to a gaze shift from one far target to another.

Results

We found a reliable pupillary near response. The removal of both accommodation and convergence in gaze shift from far to near abolished the pupillary near response. Accommodation alone did not induce pupillary constriction, while convergence and accommodation together induced a pupil response similar to the full near response.

Conclusions

The main trigger for the pupillary response seems to be convergence. Neither accommodation nor proximity alone induce a significant pupillary constriction. This suggests that the miosis of the near triad is closely coupled to the vergence system rather than being independently regulated.

Keywords

Pupil Accommodation Convergence Near triad 

Notes

Acknowledgements

MA was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (320030-147023).

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

The Swiss National Science Foundation provided financial support to MA (Funding Number 320030-147023). The sponsor had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. The study was approved by the local ethics committee.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Hung GK, Semmlow JL, Ciuffreda KJ (1984) The near response: modeling, instrumentation, and clinical applications. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 31:910–919. doi: 10.1109/TBME.1984.325258 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Semmlow J, Wetzel P (1979) Dynamic contributions of the components of binocular vergence. J Opt Soc Am 69:639–645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Phillips S, Stark L (1977) Blur: a sufficient accommodative stimulus. Doc Ophthalmol Adv Ophthalmol 43:65–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fincham EF, Walton J (1957) The reciprocal actions of accommodation and convergence. J Physiol 137:488–508CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hess EH, Polt JM (1960) Pupil size as related to interest value of visual stimuli. Science 132:349–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marg E, Morgan MW (1949) The pupillary near reflex; the relation of pupillary diameter to accommodation and the various components of convergence. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 26:183–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marg E, Morgan MW (1950) Further investigation of the pupillary near reflex; the effect of accommodation, fusional convergence and the proximity factor on pupillary diameter. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 27:217–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stakenburg M (1991) Accommodation without pupillary constriction. Vis Res 31:267–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Phillips NJ, Winn B, Gilmartin B (1992) Absence of pupil response to blur-driven accommodation. Vis Res 32:1775–1779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Backer WD, Ogle KN (1964) Pupillary response to fusional eye movements. Am J Ophthalmol 58:743–756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilhelm H (2011) Chapter 16 - Disorders of the pupil. In: Leigh CK and RJ (ed) Handb. Clin. Neurol. Elsevier, pp 427–466Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wilhelm H, Schaeffel F, Wilhelm B (1993) Age dependence of pupillary near reflex. Klin Monatsblätter Für Augenheilkd 203:110–116. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1045657 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knoll HA (1949) Pupillary changes associated with accommodation and convergence. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 26:346–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Myers GA, Stark L (1990) Topology of the near response triad. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt J Br Coll Ophthalmic Opt Optom 10:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Renard G, Massonnet-Naux (1951) Pupillary synergy to convergence. Arch Ophtalmol Rev Générale Ophtalmol 11:137–145Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tsuchiya K, Ukai K, Ishikawa S (1988) Concurrent recording of accommodative and pupillary responses elicited by quasi-static accommodative stimulation. Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi 92:336–343PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schor CM, Alexander J, Cormack L, Stevenson S (1992) Negative feedback control model of proximal convergence and accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt J Br Coll Ophthalmic Opt Optom 12:307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McDougal DH, Gamlin PD (2015) Autonomic control of the eye. Compr Physiol 5:439–473. doi: 10.1002/cphy.c140014 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horn AK, Eberhorn A, Härtig W et al (2008) Perioculomotor cell groups in monkey and man defined by their histochemical and functional properties: reappraisal of the Edinger–Westphal nucleus. J Comp Neurol 507:1317–1335. doi: 10.1002/cne.21598 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Büttner-Ennever JA, Horn AK, Scherberger H, D’Ascanio P (2001) Motoneurons of twitch and nontwitch extraocular muscle fibers in the abducens, trochlear, and oculomotor nuclei of monkeys. J Comp Neurol 438:318–335CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Büttner-Ennever JA (2006) The extraocular motor nuclei: organization and functional neuroanatomy. Prog Brain Res 151:95–125. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(05)51004-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology, Inselspital, Bern University HospitalUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations