Ocular Topical Anesthesia Does Not Attenuate Light-Induced Discomfort Using Blue and Red Light Stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate whether melanopsin-containing ophthalmic trigeminal ganglion cells provide significant input to mediate light-induced discomfort. This is done by studying the effect of ocular topical anesthesia on light-induced discomfort threshold to blue light and red light stimuli using a psychophysical approach. Method: Ten visually normal participants completed the experiment consisting of two trials: an anesthesia trial in which light stimuli were presented to both eyes following 0.5% proparacaine eye drops administration, and a placebo trial in which normal saline drops were used. In each trial, a randomized series of 280 blue and red light flashes were presented over seven intensity steps with 20 repetitions for each color and light intensity. Participants were instructed to report whether they perceived each stimulus as either "uncomfortably bright" or "not uncomfortably bright" by pressing a button. The proportion of "uncomfortable" responses was pooled to generate individual psychometric functions, from which 50% discomfort thresholds (defined as the light intensity at which the individuals perceived the stimulus to be uncomfortably bright/unpleasant 50% of the time) were calculated. Results: When blue light was presented, there was no significant difference in the light-induced discomfort thresholds between anesthesia and placebo trials (P = 0.44). Similarly, when red light was used, no significant difference in threshold values was found between the anesthesia and placebo trials (P = 0.28). Conclusions: Ocular topical anesthesia does not alter the light-induced discomfort thresholds to either blue or red light, suggesting that the melanopsin-containing ophthalmic trigeminal ganglion cells provide little or no significant input in mediating light-induced discomfort under normal physiologic conditions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".