Advertisement

A Physiological Basis of Pupillary Dynamics

  • D. Hansmann
  • J. Semmlow
  • L. Stark

Abstract

Motor activity of the human iris provides an increasingly useful data source to a growing number of research and clinical fields. In addition to studies concerning physiology of the pupillomotor system itself, pupillary activity has become an important tool in sensory physiology (Cartevette and Cole, 1962; E. ijkmann and Vendrile, 1963), neurological diagnosis and research (Stanten and Stark, 1960; Stark and Cornsweet, 1958), pharmacology (Carlson, 1957; Loewenfeld, 1963) and psychology (Hess, 1965). The usefulness of this motor output system is a result of the variety of brain stem mechanisms which contribute to its innervation and the complexity of the pupillomotor neuromuscular apparatus. With the advent of instrumentation to provide continuous monitoring of pupillomotor output quantitative studies, both static and dynamic, were possible and a great deal of behavioral information has been gathered. The ability to quantitatively control certain inputs encourages servoanalytic approaches adding to the richness of material on this Organ (Stark, 1968). However, this fecundity also presents special problems; the wealth of published data often appears confusing and contradictory, and has occasionally led to heated controversy.

Keywords

Pupil Size Active Tension Sphincter Muscle Pupil Response Human Iris 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Apter, J. T. Distribution of contractile forces in the iris of cats and dogs. American Journal of Physiology, 1960, 199(2), 377–380.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bahler, A. S. Series elastic component of mammalian skeletal muscle. American Journal of Physiology, 1967, 213, 1560–1564.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bahler, A. S. Modeling of mammalian skeletal muscle. Transactions of Bio-medical Engineering, BME, 1968, 15.4, 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bigland, B., and Lippold, O. W. The relation between force, velocity and integrated electrical activity in human muscles. Journal of Physiology, 1954, 123, 214–224.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlson, F. D. Kinematic studies on mechanical properties. In J. W. Remington (Ed.), Tissue Elasticity. Washington, D.C.: American Physiological Society, 1959, 55–72.Google Scholar
  6. Carlson, U. Individual pupillary reactions to certain centrally acting drugs in man. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 1957, 121, 501–506.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cartevette, E., and Cole, M. Comparison of the receiver-operating characteristics for messages received by ear and eye. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1962, 34, 172–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eijkmann, E., and Vendrile, A. Detection theory applied to the absolute sensitivity of sensory systems. Biophysics Journal, 1963, 3, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansmann, D. R. Human Pupillary Mechanics: Physiology and Control, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, Calif., 1972.Google Scholar
  10. Hess, E. Attitude and pupil size. Scientific American, 1965, 212, 46–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Loewenfeld, I. The iris as a pharmacologic indicator. Archives of Ophthalmology, 1963, 70, 42–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Loewenfeld, I., and Newsome, D. Iris mechanics influence of pupil size and dynamics of pupillary movements. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 1971.Google Scholar
  13. Lowenstein, O., and Loewenfeld, I. The pupil. In H. Davson (Ed.), The Eye. (Vol. 3). Academic Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  14. Meiss, R. A. Some mechanical properties of cat intestinal muscle. American Journal of Physiology, 1971, 220, 2000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller, D., and Stark, L. Effect of mydriatic drugs on pupillary dynamics. Quarterly Progress Report. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. No. 14, 1964, 265-269.Google Scholar
  16. Morgan, M. W. Accommodation and vergence. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 1968, 45, 417–454.Google Scholar
  17. Newsome, P., and Loewenfeld, I. E. Iris mechanics II: influence of pupil size in details of iris structure. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 1971, 71, 553–575.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Semmlow, J. Nonlinear pupil mechanisms. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois Medical Centre, Chicago, Illinois, 1970.Google Scholar
  19. Semmlow, J., Hansmann, D., and Stark, L. Variation on pupillomotor responsiveness with mean pupil size. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  20. Semmlow, J., and Stark, L. Stimulation of a biomechanical model of the pupil. Mathematical Bioscience, 1971, 11, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Semmlow, J., and Stark, L. Pupil movements to light and accommodative stimulation: A comparative study. Vision Research, 1973, 13, 1087–1100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sherrington, C. S. Experimental note on two movements of the eye. Journal of Physiology (London), 1894, 17, 27–29.Google Scholar
  23. Stanten, S. F., and Stark, L. A statistical analysis of pupil noise. IEEE Transactions of Bio-medical Engineering, 1960, BME-B, 140–152.Google Scholar
  24. Stark, L. Nonlinear operator in the pupil system. Quarterly Progress Report. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1964, 72, 258–260.Google Scholar
  25. Stark, L. Neurological Control Systems: Studies in bioengineering. New York: Plenum Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  26. Stark, L., and Cornsweet, T. N. Testing a servoanalytic hypothesis for pupil oscillations. Science, 1958, 127, 588.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Terdiman, J., Smith, J. D., and Stark, L. Dynamic analysis of the pupil with light and electrical stimulation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1971, SMC-1, 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Terdiman, J., Smith, J., and Stark, L. Pupil response to light and electrical stimulation: static and dynamic characteristics. Brain Research, 1969, 16, 288–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Usui, S., and Stark, L. Variations in pupillomotor noise as a function of mean pupil size. In preparation.Google Scholar
  30. Wyber, K. C. Ocular manifestations of disseminated sclerosis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1952, 45, 315–320.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Hansmann
    • 1
  • J. Semmlow
    • 2
  • L. Stark
    • 3
  1. 1.Cardiodynamics LaboratoryBeverly HillsUSA
  2. 2.Bioengineering ProgramUniversity of Illinois at Chicago CircleUSA
  3. 3.Departments of Physiological Optics and Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of California at BerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations