Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 310

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Effect of Bright Light on Lens Compensation in Chicks

Ashby, Regan S., Schaeffel, Frank·2010·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
DOI 10.1167/iovs.09-4689
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: It has been shown that sunlight or bright indoor light can inhibit the development of deprivation myopia in chicks. It remains unclear whether light merely acts on deprivation myopia or, more generally, modulates the rate of emmetropization and its set point. This study was conducted to test how bright light interacts with compensation for imposed optical defocus. Furthermore, a dopamine antagonist was applied to test whether the protective effect of light is mediated by dopamine. METHODS: Experiment A: Chicks monocularly wore either -7 or +7 D lenses for a period of 5 days, either under normal laboratory illuminance (500 lux, n = 12 and 16, respectively) or under high ambient illuminance (15,000 lux, n = 12 and 16). Experiment B: Chicks wore diffusers for a period of 4 days, either under normal laboratory illuminance (500 lux, n = 9) or high ambient illuminance (15,000 lux), with the bright-light group intravitreally injected daily with either the dopamine D(2) antagonist spiperone (500 μM, n = 9) or a vehicle solution (0.1% ascorbic acid, n = 9), with an untreated group serving as the control (n = 6). Axial length and refraction were measured at the commencement and cessation of all treatments. RESULTS: Exposure to high illuminances (15,000 lux) for 5 hours per day significantly slowed compensation for negative lenses, compared with that seen under 500 lux, although full compensation was still achieved. Compensation for positive lenses was accelerated by exposure to high illuminances but, again, the end point refraction was unchanged, compared with that of the 500-lux group. High illuminance also reduced deprivation myopia by roughly 60%, compared with that seen under 500 lux. This protective effect was abolished, however, by the daily injection of spiperone, but was unaffected by the injection of a vehicle solution. CONCLUSIONS: High illuminance levels reduce the rate of compensation for negative lenses and enhance the rate for positive lenses, but do not change the set point of emmetropization (target refraction). The retardation of myopia development by light is partially mediated by dopamine, as the injection of a dopamine antagonist abolishes the protective effect of light, at least in the case of deprivation myopia.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1167/iovs.09-4689

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 310

Metadata

Authors
Ashby, R. S., & Schaeffel, F.
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Publisher
Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO)
Published
2010-10-01
Volume
51
Issue
10
Pages
5247
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
DOI
10.1167/iovs.09-4689
OpenAlex
W1989259302
Cited by
310
References
40
FWCI
11.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.