Understanding the effects of mild traumatic brain injury on the pupillary light reflex

Kenneth J Ciuffreda, Nabin R Joshi, James Q Truong, Kenneth J Ciuffreda, Nabin R Joshi, James Q Truong

Abstract

The pupillary light reflex represents an optimal visual system to investigate and exploit in the mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) population. Static and dynamic aspects of the pupillary light reflex were investigated objectively and quantitatively in the mTBI population. Pupillary responsivity was found to be significantly delayed, slowed and reduced, but symmetrical in nature, and with a smaller baseline diameter, as compared with normals. Several pupillary parameters also discriminated between those with versus without photosensitivity. Thus, dynamic pupillometry provides several objective biomarkers for the presence of mTBI and photosensitivity, gives insight into the global sites of neurological dysfunction and possible related mechanisms, and should result in improved patient care.

Keywords: PLR; mTBI; mild traumatic brain injury; photosensitivity; pupillary light reflex.

Conflict of interest statement

Financial & competing interests disclosure The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties. No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Figures

Figure 1. . Schematic of the afferent…
Figure 1.. Schematic of the afferent and efferent arms of the sympathetic and parasympathetic neural pathways circuitry of the pupillary light reflex.
Reprinted with permission from [11]
Figure 2. . Dynamic pupillary response profile…
Figure 2.. Dynamic pupillary response profile and stimulus conditions.
Top: Schematic representation of a pupil response profile and the associated pupil parameters assessed as indicated by the open circles. The prestimulus time is 0.5 s, and the post-stimulus time is 6.0 s. Bottom: Schematic representation of the six possible experimental test stimulus conditions. The x-axis represents the relative time, and the y-axis represents the relative stimulus intensity. Dim = 4 lux, bright = 251 lux, pulse = 100 ms and step = 1000 ms. Reprinted with permission from [11].
Figure 3. . Schematic representation of pupillary…
Figure 3.. Schematic representation of pupillary response profiles for the six test conditions and two diagnostic groups.
The solid lines represent the typical normal response, and the broken lines represent the typical mild traumatic brain injury response for each of the six test conditions. The arrows depict the abnormal parameters found in the mild traumatic brain injury group as compared statistically to the normal group (p
Figure 4. . Main sequence relation.
(A) The…
Figure 4. . Main sequence relation.
(A) The main sequence for peak constriction velocity (top), and…
Figure 4.. Main sequence relation.
(A) The main sequence for peak constriction velocity (top), and average constriction velocity (bottom), under the optimal test stimulus condition (bright red step), (B) the main sequence for peak dilation velocity (top) and average dilation velocity (bottom), under the optimal test stimulus condition (bright red step). The solid line represents the normal group, and the broken line represents the mTBI group. All four velocity parameters were significantly different (p < 0.05) under this condition, being slower in the mTBI group. Avg CV: Average constriction velocity; Avg DV: Average dilation velocity; CV: Constriction velocity; DV: Dilation velocity; mTBI: Mild traumatic brain injury. Reprinted with permission from [11]
Figure 5. . Receiver operating characteristics curve…
Figure 5. . Receiver operating characteristics curve for two selected parameters under different test conditions.

Cutpoints…

Figure 5.. Receiver operating characteristics curve for two selected parameters under different test conditions.
Cutpoints for peak dilation velocity and constriction latency were combined to produce this receiver operating characteristics curve. The latency cutpoint was set at 1 standard deviation longer than the normal mean, while the cutpoint for peak dilation velocity was varied. PDV: Peak dilation velocity; ROC: Receiver operating curve. Reprinted with permission from [11].
Figure 6. . Plotted is pupil diameter…
Figure 6. . Plotted is pupil diameter as a function of time.
(A) Schematic representation of…
Figure 6.. Plotted is pupil diameter as a function of time.
(A) Schematic representation of the global average of the white and red condition pupil response for the mild traumatic brain injury group. (B) Schematic representation of the average bright blue step condition pupil responses for the mild traumatic brain injury group. (C) Schematic representation of the global average of the white and red condition pupil response for the normal group. (D) Schematic representation of the average bright blue step condition pupil responses for the normal group. The open circles indicate the statistically significant pupil parameters that differentiated those with versus without photosensitivity in both diagnostic groups. The triangles show the T50 and T75 response differences in the two profiles. Reprinted with permission from [11].
Figure 7. . Proposed photosensitivity flowchart to…
Figure 7. . Proposed photosensitivity flowchart to describe the possible mechanisms that may underlie the…
Figure 7.. Proposed photosensitivity flowchart to describe the possible mechanisms that may underlie the findings of the present study in both diagnostic groups.
Reprinted with permission from [11].
Figure 8. . Selected representative pupillary parameter…
Figure 8. . Selected representative pupillary parameter profiles as a function of refractive error in…
Figure 8.. Selected representative pupillary parameter profiles as a function of refractive error in diopters showing the three general response categories.
Data points represent the mean value for each subject. Closed circles represent the normals, and open circles represent those with mTBI. Solid lines represent the best fit for the normals, and dashed lines represent the best fit for those with mTBI. Time is in seconds. Avg DV: Average dilation velocity in mm/second; Max DV: Maximum dilation velocity in mm/second; RE: Refractive error.
All figures (8)
Figure 4. . Main sequence relation.
Figure 4.. Main sequence relation.
(A) The main sequence for peak constriction velocity (top), and average constriction velocity (bottom), under the optimal test stimulus condition (bright red step), (B) the main sequence for peak dilation velocity (top) and average dilation velocity (bottom), under the optimal test stimulus condition (bright red step). The solid line represents the normal group, and the broken line represents the mTBI group. All four velocity parameters were significantly different (p < 0.05) under this condition, being slower in the mTBI group. Avg CV: Average constriction velocity; Avg DV: Average dilation velocity; CV: Constriction velocity; DV: Dilation velocity; mTBI: Mild traumatic brain injury. Reprinted with permission from [11]
Figure 5. . Receiver operating characteristics curve…
Figure 5.. Receiver operating characteristics curve for two selected parameters under different test conditions.
Cutpoints for peak dilation velocity and constriction latency were combined to produce this receiver operating characteristics curve. The latency cutpoint was set at 1 standard deviation longer than the normal mean, while the cutpoint for peak dilation velocity was varied. PDV: Peak dilation velocity; ROC: Receiver operating curve. Reprinted with permission from [11].
Figure 6. . Plotted is pupil diameter…
Figure 6.. Plotted is pupil diameter as a function of time.
(A) Schematic representation of the global average of the white and red condition pupil response for the mild traumatic brain injury group. (B) Schematic representation of the average bright blue step condition pupil responses for the mild traumatic brain injury group. (C) Schematic representation of the global average of the white and red condition pupil response for the normal group. (D) Schematic representation of the average bright blue step condition pupil responses for the normal group. The open circles indicate the statistically significant pupil parameters that differentiated those with versus without photosensitivity in both diagnostic groups. The triangles show the T50 and T75 response differences in the two profiles. Reprinted with permission from [11].
Figure 7. . Proposed photosensitivity flowchart to…
Figure 7.. Proposed photosensitivity flowchart to describe the possible mechanisms that may underlie the findings of the present study in both diagnostic groups.
Reprinted with permission from [11].
Figure 8. . Selected representative pupillary parameter…
Figure 8.. Selected representative pupillary parameter profiles as a function of refractive error in diopters showing the three general response categories.
Data points represent the mean value for each subject. Closed circles represent the normals, and open circles represent those with mTBI. Solid lines represent the best fit for the normals, and dashed lines represent the best fit for those with mTBI. Time is in seconds. Avg DV: Average dilation velocity in mm/second; Max DV: Maximum dilation velocity in mm/second; RE: Refractive error.

References

    1. Blennow K, Brody DL, Kochanek PM, et al. Traumatic brain injuries. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primer. 2016;2:e16084.
    1. Ciuffreda KJ, Ludlam DL, Yadav NK, Thiagarajan P. Traumatic brain injury: visual consequences, diagnosis, and treatment. In: Myron Y, editor. Advances in Ophthalmology and Optometry. Elsevier; PA, USA: 2016. pp. 307–330.
    2. • Provides a comprehensive overview of vision problems in mild traumatic brain injury.

    1. Suchoff IB, Ciuffreda KJ, Kapoor N. Visual and Vestibular Consequences of Acquired Brain Injury. Optometric Extension Program Foundation; CA, USA: 2001.
    1. Thiagarajan P. New York: SUNY College of Optometry; 2013. Oculomotor rehabilitation for reading dysfunction in mild traumatic brain injury.
    1. Zasler ND, Katz DI, Zafonte RD. Brain Injury Medicine: Principles and Practice. Demos Medical Publishing; OR, USA: 2012.
    2. • Provides a comprehensive overview of the physiological and neurological consequences of traumatic brain injury in general.

    1. Baylis GC, Baylis LL. Deficit in figure-ground segmentation following closed head injury. Neuropsychologia. 1997;35(8):1133–1138.
    1. Zinn KM. In: The Pupil. Charles C, editor. Thomas Publisher; IL, USA: 1972.
    1. Kardon RH. Regulation of light through the pupil. In: Levin LA, Nilsson SFV, Ver Hoeve J, Wu SM, editors. Adler's Physiology of the Eye. Elsevier Health Sciences; NY, USA: 2011. pp. 502–525.
    2. • Provides a detailed account of several clinical and laboratory aspects of the pupillary light reflex in both normal and abnormal populations.

    1. Park JC, Moura AL, Raza AS, Rhee DW, Kardon RH, Hood DC. Toward a clinical protocol for assessing rod, cone and melanopsin contributions to the human pupil response. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(9):6624–6635.
    1. Ciuffreda KJ. Accommodation, the pupil, and presbyopia. In: Benjamin WJ, editor. Borish's Clinical Refraction (2nd Edition) Butterworth-Heinemann; MO, USA: 2006. pp. 93–144.
    1. Truong JQ. New York: SUNY College of Optometry; 2016. Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and photosensitivity: objective pupillometric findings.
    2. • Details the major new research papers dealing with the pupillary light reflex in mild traumatic brain injury.

    1. Loewenfeld IE, Lowenstein O. The Pupil: Anatomy, Physiology, and Clinical Applications. Iowa State University Press; IA, USA: 1993.
    2. • Provides an encyclopedic overview of the human and nonhuman pupil system.

    1. Capó-Aponte JE, Urosevich TG, Walsh DV, Temme LA, Tarbett AK. Pupillary light reflex as an objective biomarker for early identification of blast-induced mTBI. J. Spine. 2013;S4:004.
    1. Thiagarajan P, Cuiffreda KJ. Pupillary responses to light in chronic non-blast-induced mTBI. Brain Inj. 2015;29(12):1420–1425.
    1. Ellis CJ. The pupillary light reflex in normal subjects. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1981;65(11):754–759.
    1. NeuroOptics.
    1. Truong JQ, Ciuffreda KJ. Comparison of pupillary dynamics to light in the mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and normal populations. Brain Inj. 2016;30(11):1378–1389.
    1. Truong JQ, Ciuffreda KJ. Quantifying pupillary asymmetry through objective binocular pupillometry in the normal and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) populations. Brain Inj. 2016;30(11):1372–1377.
    1. Truong JQ, Ciuffreda KJ. Objective pupillary correlates of photosensitivity in the normal and mild traumatic brain injury populations. Mil. Med. 2016;181(10):1382–1390.
    1. Truong JQ, Joshi NR, Ciuffreda KJ. Influence of refractive error on pupillary dynamics in the normal and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) populations. J. Optom. 2016;30(11):1372–1377.
    1. Loewenfeld I. “Simple central” anisocoria: a common condition, seldom recognized. Trans. Sect. Ophthalmol. Am. Acad. Ophthalmol. Otolaryngol. 1977;83(5):832–839.
    1. Lam BL, Thompson HS, Corbett JJ. The prevalence of simple anisocoria. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1987;104(1):69–73.
    1. Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin. Nucl. Med. 1978;8(4):283–298.
    1. Von Noorden GK, Maumenee AE. Atlas of Strabismus. Mosby Inc; MO, USA: 1967.
    1. Fimreite V, Ciuffreda KJ, Yadav NK. Effects of luminance on the visually-evoked potential in visually-normal individuals and in mTBI/concussion. Brain Inj. 2015;29(10):1199–1210.
    1. Truong JQ, Ciuffreda KJ, Han MHE, Suchoff IB. Photosensitivity in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI): a retrospective analysis. Brain Inj. 2014;28(10):1283–1287.
    1. Brooks N, McKinlay W, Symington C, Beattie A, Campsie L. Return to work within the first seven years of severe head injury. Brain Inj. 1987;1(1):5–19.
    1. Cantu RC. Return to play guidelines after a head injury. Clin. Sports Med. 1998;17(1):45–60.
    1. Hirsch MJ, Weymouth FW. Pupil size in ametropia. J. Appl. Physiol. 1949;1(9):646–648.
    1. Winn B, Whitaker D, Elliott DB, Phillips NJ. Factors affecting light-adapted pupil size in normal human subjects. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1994;35(3):1132–1137.
    1. Cakmak HB, Cagil N, Simavlı H, Duzen B, Simsek S. Refractive error may influence mesopic pupil size. Curr. Eye Res. 2010;35(2):130–136.
    1. Orr JB, Seidel D, Day M, Gray LS. Is pupil diameter influenced by refractive error? Optom. Vis. Sci. 2015;92:834–840.
    1. Adhikari P, Pearson CA, Anderson AM, Zele A, Feigl B. Effect of age and refractive error on the melanopsin mediated post-illumination pupil response (PIPR) Sci. Rep. 2015;5:1–10.
    1. Applegate RA, Ballentine C, Gross H, Sarver EJ, Sarver CA. Visual acuity as a function of zernike mode and level of root mean square error. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2003;80:97–105.
    1. Gilmartin B, Nagra M, Logan NS. Shape of the posterior vitreous chamber in human emmetropia and myopia. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(12):7240–7251.
    1. Gilmartin B. Autonomic correlates of near-vision in emmetropia and myopia. In: Rosenfield M, editor. Myopia and Near Work. Butterworth-Heinemann; MA, USA: 1998. pp. 117–146.
    1. McBrien NA, Millodot M. Amplitude of accommodation and refractive error. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1986;27(7):1187–1190.
    1. Thiagarajan P, Ciuffreda KJ. Effect of oculomotor rehabilitation on vergence responsivity in mild traumatic brain injury. JRRD. 2013;50(9):1223–1240.
    1. Yadav NK, Thiagarajan P, Ciuffreda KJ. Effect of oculomotor vision rehabilitation on the visual-evoked potential and visual attention in mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2014;28(7):922–929.
    1. Capo-Aponte JE, Jorgensen-Wagers KL, Sosa JA, et al. Visual dysfunctions at different stages after blast and non-blast mild traumatic brain injury. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2017;94(1):7–15.
    1. Ciuffreda KJ. Compendium of Works on Visual Rehabilitation. Optometric Extension Program Foundation; MD, USA: 2016.
    1. Ciuffreda KJ, Ludlum DP, Thiagarajan P, Yadav NK, Capo-Aponte J. Proposed objective visual system biomarkers for mild traumatic brain injury. Mil. Med. 2014;179(11):1212–1217.
    1. Mendez ME, Owens EM, Reza Berenji G, Peppers DC, Liang LJ, Licht EA. Mild traumatic brain injury from blast vs. blunt forces: post-concussion consequences and functional neuroimaging. Neurorehabilitation. 2013;32(2):397–407.
    1. Yadav NK, Ciuffreda KJ. Objective assessment of visual attention in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) using visual-evoked potentials (VEP) Brain Inj. 2014;29(3):352–365.
    1. Suter PS, Harvey LH. Vision Rehabilitation. CRC Press; FL, USA: 2011.
    1. Bodack MI. Pediatric acquired brain injury. Optometry. 2010;81(10):516–527.
    1. Grubenhoff JA, Kirkwood MW, Deakyne S, Wathen J. Detailed concussion symptom analysis in a paediatric ED population. Brain Inj. 2011;25(10):943–949.
    1. Ellis MJ, Cordingley D, Vis S, Reimer K, Leiter J, Russell K. Vestibulo-ocular dysfunction in pediatric sports-related concussion. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 2015;16(3):248–255.
    1. Master CL, Scheiman M, Gallaway M, et al. Vision diagnoses are common after concussion in adolescents. Clin. Pediatr. (Phila) 2016;55(3):260–267.
    1. Ellis MJ, Cordingley DM, Vis S, Reimer KM, Leiter J, Russell K. Clinical predictors of vestibulo-ocular dysfunction in pediatric sports-related concussion. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 2017;19(1):38–45.
    1. Russell K, Hutchinson MG, Selci E, Leiter J, Chateau D, Ellis MJ. Academic outcomes in high-school students after a concussion: a retrospective population-based study. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(10):e0165116.
    1. Swanson MW, Weise KK, Dreer LE, et al. Academic difficulty and vision symptoms in children with concussion. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2017;94(1):60–67.
    1. Baker JG, Rieger BP, McAvoy K, et al. Principles for return to learn after concussion. Inj. J. Clin. Pract. 2014;68(11):1286–1288.
    1. Barnett BP, Singman EL. Vision concerns after mild traumatic brain injury. Curr. Treat. Opt. Neurol. 2015;17(2):5.
    1. Singman EL. Automating the assessment of visual dysfunction after traumatic brain injury. Med. Instrument. 2013 Epub ahead of print.
    1. MacLachlan C, Howland HC. Normal values and standard deviations for pupil diameter and interpupillary distance in subjects aged 1 month to 19 years. Ophthalm. Physiol. Opt. 2002;22(3):175–182.
    1. Boev AN, Fountas KN, Karampelas J, et al. Quantitative pupillometry: normative data in healthy pediatric volunteers. J. Neurosurg. 2005;103(Suppl. 6):496–500.
    1. Silbert J, Matta N, Tian J, Singman EL, Silbert DI. Pupil size and anisocoria in children measured by the plusoptiX photoscreener. J. AAPOS. 2013;17:609–611.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe