Documenta Ophthalmologica

, Volume 139, Issue 1, pp 33–44 | Cite as

Adaptation time, electroretinography, and pupillography in healthy subjects

  • Ken AsakawaEmail author
  • Akari Ito
  • Hinako Kobayashi
  • Aya Iwai
  • Chihiro Ito
  • Hitoshi Ishikawa
Original Research Article



To investigate the relationship between adaptation time and the parameters of electroretinography (ERG) and pupillography in healthy subjects.


Forty-six eyes of 23 healthy women (mean age 21.7 years) were enrolled. ERG and pupillography were tested in each of the right and left 23 eyes, respectively. ERG with a skin electrode was used to determine amplitude and implicit time by the records of rod-, flash-, cone-, and flicker-responses with white light (0.01–30 cd s/m2). Infrared pupillography was used to record the pupillary light reflex to 1-s stimulation of red light (100 cd/m2). Cone- and flicker- (rod-, flash- and pupil) responses were recorded after light (dark) adaptation at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 min.


Amplitude (µV) was significantly different between 1 min and ≥ 5 or ≥ 10 min after adaptation in b-wave of cone- or rod-response, respectively. Implicit time (ms) differed significantly between 1 min and ≥ 5 min after adaptation with b-wave of cone- and rod-response. There were significant differences between 1 min and ≥ 10 or ≥ 5 min after dark adaptation in parameter of minimum pupil diameter (mm) or constriction rate (%), respectively.


Cone-driven ERG can be recorded, even in 5 min of light adaptation time without any special light condition, whereas rod-driven ERG and pupillary response results can be obtained in 10 min or longer of dark adaptation time in complete darkness.


Light adaptation Dark adaptation Adaptation time Electroretinography Pupillary response 



The authors thank Yuuki Nakayama, Yousuke Horiuchi of Uni-hite corporation, for technical assistance with data collection; Robert E. Brandt, Founder, CEO, and CME, of MedEd Japan, for editing and formatting the manuscript. This study was supported by a grant from Kitasato University School of Allied Health Sciences Grant in-Aid for Research Project, Grant Number 2018-1041.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Statement of human rights

All research procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects in this study.


  1. 1.
    Hecht S (1920) The dark adaptation of the human eye. J Gen Physiol 2(5):499–517 PMID: 19871826 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crawford BH (1947) Visual adaptation in relation to brief conditioning stimuli. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 134(875):283–302 PMID: 20292379 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wald G, Clark AB (1937) Visual adaptation and chemistry of the rods. J Gen Physiol 21(1):93–105 PMID: 19873041 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McCulloch DL, Marmor MF, Brigell MG, Hamilton R, Holder GE, Tzekov R, Bach M (2015) ISCEV Standard for full-field clinical electroretinography (2015 update). Doc Ophthalmol 130(1):1–12. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hamilton R, Graham K (2016) Effect of shorter dark adaptation on ISCEV standard DA 0.01 and DA 3 skin ERGs in healthy adults. Doc Ophthalmol 133(1):11–19. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang B, Shen C, Zhang L, Qi L, Yao L, Chen J, Yang G, Chen T, Zhan Z (2015) Dark adaptation-induced changes in rod, cone and intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell (ipRGC) sensitivity differentially affect the pupil light response (PLR). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 253(11):1997–2005. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fotiou F, Fountoulakis KN, Goulas A, Alexopoulos L, Palikaras A (2000) Automated standardized pupillometry with optical method for purposes of clinical practice and research. Clin Physiol 20(5):336–347Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schnitzler E-M, Baumeister M, Kohnen T (2000) Scotopic measurement of normal pupils: colvard versus video vision analyzer infrared pupillometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 26(6):859–866Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bradley JC, Bentley KC, Mughal AI, Bodhireddy H, Young RS, Brown SM (2010) The effect of gender and iris color on the dark-adapted pupil diameter. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 26(4):335–340. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lorenz B, Strohmayr E, Zahn S, Friedburg C, Kramer M, Preising M, Stieger K (2012) Chromatic pupillometry dissects function of the three different light-sensitive retinal cell populations in RPE65 deficiency. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53(9):5641–5652. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bremner FD (2012) Pupillometric evaluation of the dynamics of the pupillary response to a brief light stimulus in healthy subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53(11):7343–7347. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Traustason S, Brondsted AE, Sander B, Lund-Andersen H (2016) Pupillary response to direct and consensual chromatic light stimuli. Acta Ophthalmol 94(1):65–69. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Satou T, Ishikawa H, Asakawa K, Goseki T, Shimizu K (2017) Effects of ripasudil hydrochloride hydrate instillation on pupil dynamics. Curr Eye Res 42(1):54–57. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yuhas PT, Shorter PD, McDaniel CE, Earley MJ, Hartwick AT (2017) Blue and red light-evoked pupil responses in photophobic subjects with TBI. Optom Vis Sci 94(1):108–117. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lisowska J, Lisowski L, Kelbsch C, Maeda F, Richter P, Kohl S, Zobor D, Strasser T, Stingl K, Zrenner E, Peters T, Wilhelm H, Fischer MD, Wilhelm B, RD-CURE Consortium (2017) Development of a chromatic pupillography protocol for the first gene therapy trial in patients with CNGA3-linked achromatopsia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 58(2):1274–1282. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lawlor M, Quartilho A, Bunce C, Nathwani N, Dowse E, Kamal D, Gazzard G (2017) Patients with normal tension glaucoma have relative sparing of the relative afferent pupillary defect compared to those with open angle glaucoma and elevated intraocular pressure. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 58(12):5237–5241. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crippa SV, Pedrosa Domellöf F, Kawasaki A (2018) Chromatic pupillometry in children. Front Neurol 9:669. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Normann RA, Werblin FS (1974) Control of retinal sensitivity. I. Light and dark adaptation of vertebrate rods and cones. J Gen Physiol 63(1):37–61 PMID: 4359063 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baylor DA, Nunn BJ, Schnapf JL (1984) The photocurrent, noise and spectral sensitivity of rods of the monkey Macaca fascicularis. J Physiol 357:575–607Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pugh E, Altman J (1988) Phototransduction. A role for calcium in adaptation. Nature 334(6177):16–17. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aguilar M, Stiles WS (1954) Saturation of the rod mechanism of the retina at high levels of stimulation. Opt Acta 1:59–65Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baker HD (1949) The course of foveal light adaptation measured by the threshold intensity increment. J Opt Soc Am 39(2):172–179Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yanagisawa Y, Yoshino H, Ishikawa S, Miyata M (2017) Chemical sensitivity and sick-building syndrome. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tsujisawa I, Mukuno K, Ishikawa S (1989) The pupillary change in the course of brain death. J Auton Nerv Syst 26:63–70 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lowenstein O (1955) Pupillary reflex shapes and topical clinical diagnosis. Neurology 5(9):631–644 PMID: 13253831 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gamlin PD, McDougal DH, Pokorny J, Smith VC, Yau KW, Dacey DM (2007) Human and macaque pupil responses driven by melanopsin-containing retinal ganglion cells. Vis Res 47(7):946–954. Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kardon R, Anderson SC, Damarjian TG, Grace EM, Stone E, Kawasaki A (2009) Chromatic pupil responses: preferential activation of the melanopsin-mediated versus outer photoreceptor-mediated pupil light reflex. Ophthalmology 116(8):1564–1573. Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Asakawa K, Ishikawa H, Uga S, Mashimo K, Shimizu K, Kondo M, Terasaki H (2015) Functional and morphological study of retinal photoreceptor cell degeneration in transgenic rabbits with a Pro347Leu rhodopsin mutation. Jpn J Ophthalmol 59(5):353–363. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthoptics and Visual Science, School of Allied Health SciencesKitasato UniversitySagamiharaJapan

Personalised recommendations