Advertisement

Conceptual Stimuli, Pupillary Dilation and Evoked Cortical Potentials: A Review of Recent Advances

  • Gad Hakerem

Abstract

I am combining in this paper the two presentations I gave at the symposium. The first part deals with the problem of instrumentation in the measurement of the pupil.

Keywords

Monozygotic Twin Pupillary Dilation Stimulus Pattern Evoke Potential Dizygotic Twin 
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. Bellarminow, L. Anwendung der graphischen Methoden bei Unter-suchungen der Pupillenbewegungen: Photograph. Arch, Ges. Physiol., 1885, 19.Google Scholar
  2. Bumke, O. Die Pupillenstoerungen in Geisteskrankheiten, Jena: Fischer Verlag, 1904.Google Scholar
  3. Cueppers, C. Eine neue Methode zur stetigen Registrierung der konsensuellen Pupillenreaktion. Klinische Monatsblatter für Augenheilkunde, 1951, 119, 411.Google Scholar
  4. Dodt, E. and Schrader, K. E. (Eds.) Die Normaleund die Gestoerte Pupillenbewegung. Muenchen: J. F. Bergman Verlag, 1973.Google Scholar
  5. Dustman, R. E. The visual evoked potential in twins. EEG, 1965, 19, 570–575.Google Scholar
  6. Friedman, D., Hakerem, G., Sutton, S. and Fleiss, J. Effect of stimulus uncertainty on the pupillary dilation response and the vertex evoked potential. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1973, 34, 475–484.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hakerem, G. The effect of cognitive manipulation on pupillary diameter and evoked cortical potentials. In, E. Dodt and K. E. Schrader (Eds.) Die Normale und die Gestoerte Pupillenbewegung. Muenchen: J. F. Bergman Verlag, 1973.Google Scholar
  8. Hakerem, G. Pupillography. In, P. Venables and I. Martin (Eds.) A Manual of Psychophysiological Methods. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1967.Google Scholar
  9. Hakerem, G. and Sutton, S. Pupillary response at visual threshold. Nature, 1966, 212, 485–486.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hess, E. H. Attitude and pupil size. Scientific American, 1965, 212, 46–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. King, G. An improved electronic pupillograph for clinical use. Proceedings of the National Electronics Conference, 1960, 16.Google Scholar
  12. Levine, S. Pupillary dilation as a function of stimulus uncertainty. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Queens College of CUNY, 1969.Google Scholar
  13. Lewis, E. G., Dustman, R. E. and Sebek, E. Evoked response similarities in monozygotic, dizygotic and unrelated individuals: a comparative study. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1972, 23, 309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lowenstein, O. and Loewenfeld, I. E. Electronic pupillography. Archives of Ophthalmology, 1958, 59, 353–363.Google Scholar
  15. Sutton, S., Braren, M., Zubin, J. and John, E. R. Evoked potential correlates to stimulus uncertainty. Science, 1965, 150, 1187–1188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tueting, P., Sutton, S. and Zubin, J. Quantitative evoked potential correlates of the probability event. Psychophysiology, 1971, 7, 385–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Venables, P. H. and Martin, I. A Manual of Psychophysiological Methods. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1967.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gad Hakerem
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyQueens College of CUNYUSA
  2. 2.Biometrics Unit of New York State Department of Mental HygieneUSA

Personalised recommendations