Intrinsically Photosensitive Retinal Ganglion Cells Targeted Chromatic Pupillometry Using A Ring Light Stimulus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the discovery of the presence of the photopigment melanopsin in the intrinsically retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) around 20 years ago, the interest in chromatic pupillometry increased.Melanopsin, and consequently ipRGCs, have a high sensitivity to the blue light, showing a different pupil light response (PLR), especially in the pupil recovery, between the blue and red stimuli.It is also known that, although the ipRGCs are broadly spread in the retina, they do not exist in the fovea, and they are most abundant in the perifoveal region.Chromatic pupillometry technique normally uses full-field stimulators to deliver the coloured stimuli close to the person's eye.In this study, a novel type of stimuli using a ring light with coloured filters was studied and proposed that could allow a more targeted stimulation of the ipRGCs, reducing the quantity of light entering the retina and maximizing their effect in PLR.This ring light should be placed in a certain distance to the eye, determined with an optical simulation.Some preliminary experiments were made in one individual to assess the viability and potential interest of this type of stimulus.The Post-Illumination Pupil Light Response 6s after the stimuli offsets (PIPR-6s) is a parameter highly used in chromatic pupillometry.The difference of the PIPR-6s value between the blue and the red stimuli was 13.1%, which is aligned with the literature when using full-field stimulators.It was found that, using a ring light as stimuli at 30 cm of distant in the front of the eye, were obtained compatible results as the ones described in the literature.This work indicates a potential new way to stimulate the pupil for chromatic pupillometry, focused on a targeted stimulation of the ipRGCs, that could be used for developing new pupillometer systems more portable and accessible.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".