Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 22, 2025
Electroretinogram Recording for Infants and Children under Anesthesia to Achieve Optimal Dark Adaptation and International Standards
Published on: September 3, 2020
Differences in the pupillary responses to evening light between children and adolescents
Lauren E Hartstein1, Monique K LeBourgeois2, Mark T Durniak3
1Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA. Lauren.Hartstein@colorado.edu.
Background:
In the mammalian retina, intrinsically-photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGC) detect light and integrate signals from rods and cones to drive multiple non-visual functions including circadian entrainment and the pupillary light response (PLR). Non-visual photoreception and consequently non-visual sensitivity to light may change across child development. The PLR represents a quick and reliable method for examining non-visual responses to light in children. The purpose of this study was to assess differences in the PLRs to blue and red stimuli, measured one hour prior to bedtime, between children and adolescents.
Methods:
Forty healthy participants (8-9 years, n = 21; 15-16 years, n = 19) completed a PLR assessment 1 h before their habitual bedtime. After a 1 h dim-light adaptation period (< 1 lx), baseline pupil diameter was measured in darkness for 30 s, followed by a 10 s exposure to 3.0 × 1013 photons/cm2/s of either red (627 nm) or blue (459 nm) light, and a 40 s recovery in darkness to assess pupillary re-dilation. Subsequently, participants underwent 7 min of dim-light re-adaptation followed by an exposure to the other light condition. Lights were counterbalanced across participants.
Results:
Across both age groups, maximum pupil constriction was significantly greater (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.48) and more sustained (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.41) during exposure to blue compared to red light. For adolescents, the post-illumination pupillary response (PIPR), a hallmark of melanopsin function, was larger after blue compared with red light (p = 0.02, d = 0.60). This difference was not observed in children. Across light exposures, children had larger phasic (p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.20) and maximal (p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.22) pupil constrictions compared to adolescents.
Conclusions:
Blue light elicited a greater and more sustained pupillary response than red light in children and adolescents. However, the overall amplitude of the rod/cone-driven phasic response was greater in children than in adolescents. Our findings using the PLR highlight a higher sensitivity to evening light in children compared to adolescents, and continued maturation of the human non-visual photoreception/system throughout development.
