The nexus between pupillary constriction characteristics and accommodative facility: A quantitative and correlational study.

IF 1.8 4区医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-18 DOI:10.4103/IJO.IJO_2583_24

Pritam Dutta, Zerin M Mollah, Mrinmoy Goswami, Niki Kalita, Anjuma A Begum

{"title":"The nexus between pupillary constriction characteristics and accommodative facility: A quantitative and correlational study.","authors":"Pritam Dutta, Zerin M Mollah, Mrinmoy Goswami, Niki Kalita, Anjuma A Begum","doi":"10.4103/IJO.IJO_2583_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To analyze the interplay between pupillary constriction dynamics and variations in accommodative facility.Methods: This study included 400 eyes from 200 subjects, divided into high and low-accommodative facility groups based on performance measured in cycles per minute (CPM) using accommodative flippers (±2.00D). Pupillary constriction dynamics were assessed using an iPhone-based pupillometer application, focusing on constriction speed and amplitude.Results: The high accommodative facility group (mean ± SD: 14.2 ± 1.1 CPM) significantly outperformed the low facility group (mean ± SD: 9.4 ± 1.2 CPM, P < 0.001). Pupillary constriction speed was faster in the high facility group (mean ± SD: 3.8 ± 0.5 mm/s) compared to the low facility group (mean ± SD: 3.2 ± 0.6 mm/s, P = 0.002). Amplitude of constriction was greater in the high facility group (mean ± SD: 2.3 ± 0.3 mm) versus the low facility group (mean ± SD: 1.9 ± 0.4 mm, P = 0.005). Significant positive correlations were found between constriction speed and accommodative facility ( r = 0.58, P = 0.001) and between constriction amplitude and accommodative facility ( r = 0.52, P = 0.003). Multiple regression analysis indicated that constriction speed and amplitude collectively predicted accommodative facility, with an R² of 0.47 ( P < 0.001), explaining 47% of the variance.Conclusion: Increased pupillary constriction speed and amplitude are significantly associated with higher accommodative facility. These findings highlight the role of pupillary dynamics as predictors of accommodative performance and provide insights into the mechanisms underlying accommodative dysfunction.","PeriodicalId":13329,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":"1324-1329"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12448503/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_2583_24","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To analyze the interplay between pupillary constriction dynamics and variations in accommodative facility.

Methods: This study included 400 eyes from 200 subjects, divided into high and low-accommodative facility groups based on performance measured in cycles per minute (CPM) using accommodative flippers (±2.00D). Pupillary constriction dynamics were assessed using an iPhone-based pupillometer application, focusing on constriction speed and amplitude.

Results: The high accommodative facility group (mean ± SD: 14.2 ± 1.1 CPM) significantly outperformed the low facility group (mean ± SD: 9.4 ± 1.2 CPM, P < 0.001). Pupillary constriction speed was faster in the high facility group (mean ± SD: 3.8 ± 0.5 mm/s) compared to the low facility group (mean ± SD: 3.2 ± 0.6 mm/s, P = 0.002). Amplitude of constriction was greater in the high facility group (mean ± SD: 2.3 ± 0.3 mm) versus the low facility group (mean ± SD: 1.9 ± 0.4 mm, P = 0.005). Significant positive correlations were found between constriction speed and accommodative facility ( r = 0.58, P = 0.001) and between constriction amplitude and accommodative facility ( r = 0.52, P = 0.003). Multiple regression analysis indicated that constriction speed and amplitude collectively predicted accommodative facility, with an R² of 0.47 ( P < 0.001), explaining 47% of the variance.

Conclusion: Increased pupillary constriction speed and amplitude are significantly associated with higher accommodative facility. These findings highlight the role of pupillary dynamics as predictors of accommodative performance and provide insights into the mechanisms underlying accommodative dysfunction.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

瞳孔收缩特性与调节设施之间的关系：一项定量和相关研究。

目的：分析瞳孔收缩动力学与调节设施变化之间的相互作用。方法：选取200名受试者的400只眼，采用调节脚蹼（±2.00D）测量每分钟循环数（cycles per minute， CPM），分为高适应性组和低适应性组。使用基于iphone的瞳孔计应用程序评估瞳孔收缩动态，重点关注收缩速度和幅度。结果：高调节设施组（平均±SD: 14.2±1.1 CPM）显著优于低调节设施组（平均±SD: 9.4±1.2 CPM, P < 0.001）。高器械组瞳孔收缩速度（平均±SD: 3.8±0.5 mm/s）明显快于低器械组（平均±SD: 3.2±0.6 mm/s, P = 0.002）。高器械组（平均±SD: 2.3±0.3 mm）收缩幅度大于低器械组（平均±SD: 1.9±0.4 mm, P = 0.005）。收缩速度与调节设施呈正相关（r = 0.58, P = 0.001），收缩幅度与调节设施呈正相关（r = 0.52, P = 0.003）。多元回归分析表明，收缩速度和收缩幅度共同预测调节设施，R²为0.47 (P < 0.001)，解释了47%的方差。结论：瞳孔收缩速度和幅度的增加与调节能力的提高有显著的相关性。这些发现突出了瞳孔动态作为调节表现的预测因子的作用，并为调节功能障碍的机制提供了见解。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Indian Journal of Ophthalmology OPHTHALMOLOGY-

CiteScore

3.80

自引率

19.40%

发文量

1963

审稿时长

38 weeks

期刊介绍： Indian Journal of Ophthalmology covers clinical, experimental, basic science research and translational research studies related to medical, ethical and social issues in field of ophthalmology and vision science. Articles with clinical interest and implications will be given preference.