Response anisocoria in the pupillary light and darkness reflex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pupil constricts or dilates in response to a luminance increase or decrease, and these transient pupillary responses are controlled by the parasympathetic and sympathetic pathways. Although pupillary responses of the two eyes are highly correlated, they are not always identical (referred to as anisocoria). For example, there are unequal direct and consensual pupillary constriction responses after an increase in luminance to one eye. While contraction anisocoria (i.e. constriction) has been demonstrated in the pupillary light reflex, it is not yet known if there is also dilation anisocoria in the pupillary darkness reflex. Unlike previous studies that focused on the pupillary light reflex, we examined response anisocoria in both pupillary light and darkness reflexes. While requiring participants to maintain central fixation, we presented a light or dark stimulus to either the right or left visual field to induce transient pupillary constriction or dilation. Both the pupillary light and darkness reflexes had significantly larger ipsilateral responses compared to the contralateral responses relative to the stimulated visual field. The observed ipsilateral effects occurred significantly faster in the light than darkness reflex, suggesting that larger ipsilateral pupillary dilation after a luminance decrease cannot be only attributed to the inhibition of the parasympathetic system, but is also mediated by the excitation of the sympathetic system. Together, our results demonstrated a larger ipsilateral pupil response in both the pupillary light and darkness reflex, indicating an asymmetry in ipsilateral and contralateral neural circuitry of the pupillary darkness reflex.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".