The Relation Between Light-Induced Lacrimation and the Melanopsin-Driven Postillumination Pupil Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the chromatic characteristics and intensity-response function of light-induced reflex lacrimation and its correlation with the melanopsin-driven postillumination pupil response (PIPR). Methods: Eleven visually normal participants completed the experiment. Lacrimation was measured in one eye by placing a calibrated filter paper strip in the conjunctival sac over a 1 minute-interval (Schirmer's test) during which participants received either no light stimulation (baseline trial) or one flash of blue or red light stimuli presented binocularly with a Ganzfeld stimulator, while the pupil response was recorded simultaneously from the fellow eye by using an eye tracker. Light stimulation trials were presented in alternating fashion at seven incremental intensity steps (0.1, 1, 3.16, 10, 31.6, 100, and 400 cd/m2). Postillumination pupil response was defined as the mean pupil constriction from 10 to 30 seconds post illumination. Results: The amount of lacrimation in response to 10 to 400 cd/m2 blue light was significantly greater than baseline and increased monotonically with increasing light intensity. Red light did not induce significant reflex lacrimation until the brightest stimulation at 400 cd/m2. There was a positive linear correlation between PIPR and lacrimation in response to blue light (r = 0.74, P < 0.001) but not to red light (r = 0.13, P = 0.25). Conclusions: The chromatic characteristics and intensity-response of light-induced lacrimation are highly consistent with the features of melanopsin phototransduction. This finding is the first in vivo evidence in humans, supporting the hypothesis that light-induced reflex lacrimation is mediated primarily by melanopsin photoactivity, and provides new insight into the putative mechanisms of photophobia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".