Skip to main content
Download PDF

Altered pupil light and darkness reflex and eye-blink responses in late-life depression

BMC Geriatrics volume 24, Article number: 545 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Late-life depression (LLD) is a prevalent neuropsychiatric disorder in the older population. While LLD exhibits high mortality rates, depressive symptoms in older adults are often masked by physical health conditions. In younger adults, depression is associated with deficits in pupil light reflex and eye blink rate, suggesting the potential use of these responses as biomarkers for LLD.

Methods

We conducted a study using video-based eye-tracking to investigate pupil and blink responses in LLD patients (n = 25), older (OLD) healthy controls (n = 29), and younger (YOUNG) healthy controls (n = 25). The aim was to determine whether there were alterations in pupil and blink responses in LLD compared to both OLD and YOUNG groups.

Results

LLD patients displayed significantly higher blink rates and dampened pupil constriction responses compared to OLD and YOUNG controls. While tonic pupil size in YOUNG differed from that of OLD, LLD patients did not exhibit a significant difference compared to OLD and YOUNG controls. GDS-15 scores in older adults correlated with light and darkness reflex response variability and blink rates. PHQ-15 scores showed a correlation with blink rates, while MoCA scores correlated with tonic pupil sizes.

Conclusions

The findings demonstrate that LLD patients display altered pupil and blink behavior compared to OLD and YOUNG controls. These altered responses correlated differently with the severity of depressive, somatic, and cognitive symptoms, indicating their potential as objective biomarkers for LLD.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Late-life depression (LLD) is a prevalent neuropsychiatric disorder in older adults, with an estimated prevalence ranging from 15 to 40% [1,2,3,4]. Despite LLD exhibiting high mortality rates from suicide and medical illness [5,6,7], it is often unrecognized and untreated in older adults because the symptoms of depression are frequently masked by pronounced physical health conditions. Therefore, it is essential to develop an easy-to-measure, objective method to facilitate the detection of LLD in the older population.

Pupil size is controlled by the balanced activity between the parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems [8,9,10], with pupil constriction in response to global luminance increase and pupil dilation in response to global luminance decrease [11, 12], known as the pupil light and darkness reflex (referred to as PLR and PDR), respectively. The PLR is primarily driven by parasympathetic activation, while PDR is mostly mediated by sympathetic activation [9, 13,14,15]. Examining the PLR and PDR can thus provide an assessment of autonomic functions. Correspondingly, the PLR has been widely used in clinical investigations [9, 16].

Autonomic nervous system dysfunction has been associated with depressive disorders in adults [17,18,19], as imbalanced autonomic functioning is commonly observed in psychiatric disorders [20,21,22]. Research has further highlighted autonomic dysfunction as a significant risk factor for depression [23]. However, the use of the PLR in the study of depression is still limited [24]. Research has generally shown that PLR responses have been attenuated in patients with depression compared to age-matched controls [25,26,27], though other effects have also been noted [25, 28]. This alteration is particularly sensitive to pupil responses to blue light [29,30,31]. Moreover, PLR responses can not only predict depression with suicidal risk [32, 33] but also predict the outcome with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment [34]. While the PLR is a promising tool to study depression patients, it has yet to be used for the investigation in patients with LLD. Moreover, although response variability, commonly indexed by the coefficient of variation (CoV), provides insightful information for response performance [35] that is useful for clinical investigation (e.g [36]), previous PLR studies have not systematically examined response variability in depression patients.

LLD is a complex syndrome, and its pathophysiology involves multiple factors, affecting several neural systems [2]. Research in depression has been mostly focused on the PLR. While PDR, mediated mainly by the sympathetic pathway, could also provide clinical insight into individuals with depression, it is yet to be systematically investigated. Furthermore, tonic (baseline) pupil size, sought to reflect tonic neural activity of the locus coeruleus [37], and the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine (LC-NE) system is greatly influenced by age-related decline [38, 39]. Yet, research examining tonic pupil size in depression remains limited. Moreover, dysfunction of the dopaminergic system is noted in individuals with depression [40, 41]. Using eye blink rate to quantify central dopamine activity [42,43,44,45], research has shown higher blink rates in depression patients compared to controls [46,47,48]. However, all these measures have yet to be examined in LLD patients.

To investigate the function of the autonomic and dopaminergic systems in LLD patients, we employed video-based eye-tracking, measuring both pupil size and eye blinks. We systematically varied background luminance to induce both PLR and PDR responses in LLD patients, as well as in healthy younger and older adults. We hypothesized that light and darkness reflex, tonic pupil size, and eye blink rates should be altered in patients with LLD compared to healthy older and younger adults. More specifically, based on previous results in depression individuals, LLD patients should also exhibit attenuated PLR responses, and possibly reduced PDR responses, along with and higher eye blink rates compared to healthy controls. Regarding PDR and response variability, these aspects are subject to exploratory analysis without specific hypotheses.

Methods and materials

Experimental setup

All experimental procedures were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Taipei Medical University, Taiwan, and were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki [49]. Participants were naïve regarding the purpose of the experiment and provided informed consent with compensation for their participation. Twenty-five LLD patients, recruited from Shuang Ho Hospital by psychiatrist and co-author YL, participated in the study (mean age = 72 years, range: 61–81). Patients underwent assessments for somatic symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ-15), cognitive status (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA), and disease severity based on the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) [50,51,52]. We used the Chinese version of these neuropsychological tests, which have been previously validated [53,54,55]. Inclusion criteria focused on adults aged 65 years or older with a current DSM-5 diagnosis of nonpsychotic unipolar major depressive episode and the first lifetime depressive episode at age 65 or older. Participants were also required to be cognitively intact, without a clinical diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or dementia. To exclude comorbid cognitive disorders, inclusion criteria included scores of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) [56] of 24 or above (for years of education > 6), 21 or above (for between 1 and 6 years of education), and 17 or above (for no education). Other common exclusion criteria included: (1) Current or past diagnoses of other psychiatric disorders, except for depression. (2) History of cognitive disorders, major neurological illnesses, and brain injuries. (3) Physically unstable patients. A comprehensive collection of correlated symptoms and signs, rather than structured interviews, was undertaken to confirm LLD cases. Final DSM-5 diagnoses were determined through diagnostic interviews conducted by co-author Y.L., a geriatric psychiatrist, and co-author S.C., a neurologist. Twenty-nine age-matched healthy older adults, with no history of major psychiatric disorders or neurological illnesses (mean age 73 years; range: 65–85), were also recruited (referred to hereafter as OLD). These participants were spouses or friends of the LLD participants or community members who responded to advertisements. Participants with comorbid neurological or ophthalmic conditions, such as macular degeneration or cataracts, were excluded. OLD did not significantly differ from LLD in terms of age, years of education, or MoCA scores. Additionally, twenty-five healthy younger adults (mean age 26 years; range: 20–35), referred to hereafter as YOUNG, were also recruited though advertisements. Three neuropsychological tests, except for MoCA, were not completed by one LLD participant and five OLD participants due to technical issues. These tests were not administered to YOUNG participants. Clinical data and participant demographics are presented in Table 1. LLD patients did not discontinue their medications for the study, adhering to approved institutional review board ethical guidelines. Table 2 displays medication characteristics, and antidepressants were categorized into six types, including serotonin/noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRI), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitors (NDRI), tricyclic antidepressants (TCA), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOI), and others. Sample sizes were determined based on our previous pupillometry studies in both healthy individuals and clinical populations [11, 57, 58].

Table 1 Demographics and clinical score of participants
Full size table
Table 2 Medication of participants
Full size table

Recording and apparatus

Participants were seated in a dark room, with an illuminance level of approximately 2.5 lx for 5 min to become familiar with the experiment setup and to listen to the instructions delivered by the experimenter. Eye position, pupil size and blink rate were measured with a video-based eye tracker (Eyelink-1000 plus binocular-arm, SR Research, Osgoode, ON, Canada) at a rate of 500 Hz with binocular recording, and stimulus presentation and data acquisition were controlled by the Eyelink Experiment Builder. Stimuli were presented on an LCD monitor at a screen resolution of 1920 × 1080 pixels with a 60 Hz refresh rate, subtending a viewing angle of 43° x 24°, with the distance from the eyes to the monitor set at 80 cm.

Interleaved light and darkness reflex task (Fig. 1)

We used the light and darkness reflex task [58] to compare pupil light and darkness reflex responses between the three groups. Each trial began with the appearance of a central fixation point (FP) (0.5° diameter, 25 cd/m2; referred to hereafter as cd/m2) on a gray background (10 cd/m2). After 900–1100 ms of central fixation, background luminance either increased to 15–20 cd/m2, decreased to 0.1–5 cd/m2 (both with 50 and 100% contrast relative to the gray background), or stayed the same (10 cd/m2). Participants were required to maintain steady fixation for an additional 2–2.5 s. The next trial commenced after an inter-trial interval of 3–4 s. Background luminance conditions were randomly interleaved, and each condition had 35 trials in the LLD and OLD groups, and had 20 trials in the YOUNG group trials, lasting approximately 25 and 18 min, respectively.

Fig. 1
figure 1

A Experimental paradigm. Each trial started with a central fixation point on a gray background. After a delay, the background luminance either increased (20–15 cd/m2), decreased (5–0.1 cd/m2), or stayed the same (10 cd/m2). Participants were required to maintain steady fixation for an additional 2000–2500 ms. B Measurements of pupil response dynamics. PROL: pupil response onset latency. Peak Velocity: peak pupil response velocity. Amplitude: peak pupil response size. Peak Time: time to peak response. Bkgd: background

Full size image

Data analysis

To maintain an accurate measure of pupil size, participants were required to maintain central fixation during the task. The pupil responses are consensual [9, 11] and we arbitrarily selected the data from the left eye for analysis because it usually showed higher accuracy in our previous data collection experience. Following the proposed procedure [59], we used the available MATLAB codes for pupil data preprocessing to remove invalid data time points, and pre- and post-invalid pupil values were used to perform a linear interpolation to replace invalid pupil values. After that, the data were smoothed using a zero-phase low-pass filter with a cut-off frequency of 5 Hz, because our previous research, alongside others, demonstrates that pupil oscillations primarily occur at frequencies below 5 Hz [60]. To investigate task-evoked responses, a baseline-correction procedure was used [61]. The baseline pupil size for each trial was determined by averaging pupil size from 200 ms before to the onset of the background luminance change. We then subtracted this baseline value from original pupil values. Because pupil size was constantly changing even when there was no stimulus presented and, to simplify data presentation and quantification, we normalized pupil diameter values by contrasting the background change versus no-background-change conditions directly [62]. Specifically, pupil values from each background change trial were contrasted to the average pupil value from all control trials. Because the tonic pupil size (pre-baseline-correction) is hypothesized to reflex tonic LC activity [37], we quantified tonic pupil size in the mean absolute pupil size in the baseline epoch (-200 to 0 ms of background luminance change onset). Because pupil light and darkness reflexes are primarily driven by the parasympathetic and sympathetic system, respectively [9, 13,14,15], two time windows were arbitrarily selected to separately capture pupil light and darkness peak responses: (1) an epoch spanning from 600 to 900 ms after the background change onset was selected for the pupil light reflex because the time to peak constriction was ~ 754 ms; and (2) an epoch spanning from 1900 to 2000 ms was selected for the pupil darkness reflex because the time to peak dilation was ~ 2000 ms. For each subject, coefficient of variation (CoV) (standard deviation/mean × 100) was also computed to measure response variability. Because CoV is generally calculated using non-negative values and pupil constriction are considered as negative values, we added the absolute value of the minimum value (the most negative value) plus a small constant value (to avoid division by zero) to all data points. This procedure ensured that all values were positive. We additionally measured eye blinks using previously developed algorithms [59] because eye blinks are not only linked to cognitive load (e.g [63]). . but also associated with dopaminergic activity [64]. Eye blinks are typically categorized into three types: spontaneous, reflex, and voluntary, with spontaneous eye blinks specifically linked to dopamine activity [64, 65]. In our study, participants were simply required to maintain central fixation, and the nature of the stimuli did not induce eye blinks. Therefore, the eye blinks measured here should be considered as spontaneous eye blinks. Moreover, while eye blink rates are influenced by various viewing factors, such as reading from a computer screen compared to reading from a hard copy [66, 67], this influence would be consistent across all three groups in our study. Eye blink rate around the onset of background luminance change (-1 to 2 s) was calculated to indirectly measure dopamine level [42,43,44,45]. Note that outlier values in baseline pupil size beyond 1.5 times the interquartile range (the difference between upper and lower quartiles) below the lower quartile or above the upper quartile were excluded from analysis. The above criteria resulted in the removal of 6.95% of trials.

Pupil metrics were analyzed [9, 16, 68,69,70,71], and similar to our previous research [72, 73], four pupil indices were reported (Fig. 1B). We first calculated pupil response onset latencies (PROL) that were defined as the time point at which pupil acceleration reached its maximal and pupil velocity was negative (i.e. constricting) in the pupil light reflex conditions (or positive in the pupil darkness reflex conditions) according to the established criteria [74]. Moreover, we calculated the maximum response amplitude, and the maximum response velocity of the pupil response. Additionally, we calculated the time of maximum responses for the time that pupil size reached its maximal constriction or dilation (referred to as Peak Time).

A mixed ANOVA (3 × 4 ANOVA: between-subjects factor: LDD/OLD/YOUNG × within-subjects factor: background luminance level) was performed for statistical analysis with a Tukey’s HSD post hoc comparison unless stated otherwise, and homogeneity correction was applied where necessary. The simple main effect was further used to specifically test our hypothesis that the modulation of pupil responses was different among three groups. A one-way ANOVA was used for tonic pupil size and blink rate analyses. Correlational analyses were further performed to examine the relationship between scores of neuropsychological tests and pupil measures in LLD and OLD participants, so we collapsed these two group participants. Tonic pupil size, pupil light and darkness reflex in lower contrast conditions (bright and dark), and eye blink rates were selected to examine their correlations with the scores of neuropsychological tests. We used the bright and dark conditions to avoid the ceiling effect that may be resulted from using a high contrast of background luminance change. All statistical comparisons were performed using JASP Team [75] and MATLAB (The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA).

Results

Tonic pupil size

We first examined the effect of tonic pupil size in the three groups, Fig. 2A shows dynamics of absolute pupil size relative to the change of background luminance. All background luminance conditions were then collapsed to investigate absolute pupil sizes before the luminance change. Mean pupil sizes at the baseline epoch (-200 ms to luminance change onset, see “Methods and materials” section) were significantly different between groups (F(2,76) = 4.242, p = 0.021, ηp2 = 0.070) (Fig. 2B), showing smaller tonic pupil sizes in older individuals. Post hoc comparison of groups determined that significantly smaller pupil sizes in OLD compared to YOUNG participants (p = 0.049). To examine variability of tonic pupil size, coefficient of variation (CoV) shows significant differences among the three groups (F(2,76) = 4.242, p = 0.021, ηp2 = 0.070) (Fig. 2C). Post hoc comparison revealed a lower CoV in LLD compared to YOUNG participants, though these differences were only approached significance (p = 0.061).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Tonic pupil size and blink rate effects for each experimental group. Dynamics of absolute pupil diameter following background luminance change in different conditions (A). Mean pupil sizes (tonic pupil size) at the baseline epoch (-200 to 0 ms) (B), mean coefficient of variation of tonic pupil size (C), and eye blink rate (D) shown for different experimental groups. In A, the shaded colored regions surrounding the pupil response curves represent the ± standard error range (across participants) for different conditions. The gray area represents the epoch selected for tonic pupil size analyses. In B-D, the large-squares and error-bars represent the mean values ± standard error across participants. The small circles represent the mean value for each participant. White: background luminance 20 cd/m2. Bright: background luminance 10 cd/m2. NoChange: background luminance 10 cd/m2 (stayed the same). Dark: background luminance 5 cd/m2. Black: background luminance 0.1 cd/m2. healthy younger adults. YOUNG: healthy younger adults. OLD: healthy age-matched older adults. LLD: late-life depression patients. Bkgd: background. *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001

Full size image

Blink rate

There was a significant difference in blink rate between the three groups during the task-related interval (-1 to 2 sec relative to background luminance change onset) (F(2,76) = 35.054, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.381) (Fig. 2D). Post hoc pairwise comparison of groups determined that LLD (p = 0.002) and OLD (p < 0.001) participants made significantly more blinks than YOUNG participants. Moreover, there were also significant higher blink rates in LLD compared with OLD participants (p = 0.002).

Pupil light and darkness reflex

As displayed in Fig. 3A, changes in background luminance resulted in transient pupil responses (baseline-corrected), with pupil constriction and dilation in response to luminance increase and decrease, respectively, as documented in the literature [9, 11,12,13]. Notably, pupil size changed even without changes in background luminance (Fig. 3A). To normalize pupil size, we contrasted the luminance change condition to the no luminance change condition in each group separately, as illustrated in Fig. 3B (see “Methods and materials” section). To further quantify these results, the light epoch (600–900 ms) and darkness epoch (1900–2000 ms) were used (see “Methods and materials” section). Pupil responses were as a function of background luminance changes (F(3,228) = 834.234, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.917) (Fig. 3C), and the size of pupil responses scaled with change contrast of background luminance (all p < 0.001 with a Holm post hoc pairwise comparison). Moreover, there was a significant interaction between groups and background luminance conditions (F(6,228) = 23.209, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.379). The simple main effects revealed significant differences between groups in all luminance conditions (all p < 0.01). Specifically, larger pupil constriction and dilation were often observed in YOUNG compared to OLD participants, and these differences were more pronounced in the light reflex compared to the darkness reflex conditions. Furthermore, LLD patients showed reduced pupil light reflex responses compared to OLD participants, though this effect was not significant in post hoc comparison. As displayed in Fig. 3D, there was a significant difference between background luminance conditions in CoV (F(3,228) = 3.318, p = 0.024, ηp2 = 0.042). Holm post hoc pairwise comparison of groups revealed that Dark (p = 0.049) and Black (p = 0.049) conditions had significantly lower CoV than the bright condition. Moreover, there was a significant difference between groups (F(2,76) = 5.026, p = 0.009, ηp2 = 0.117). Post hoc comparison of conditions determined that OLD participants had significantly lower CoV than YOUNG participants (p = 0.026). Moreover, there was no interaction between groups and background luminance conditions (F(6,228) = 1.572, p = 0.163, ηp2 = 0.040).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Pupil light and darkness reflex responses for each experimental group. Dynamics of baseline-corrected pupil diameter following background luminance change in different conditions (A). Normalized pupil light and darkness responses (light/darkness responses minus no change responses) (B). Mean pupil sizes at the light (600-900ms) or darkness (1900-2000ms) epoch (C), and mean coefficient of variation of PLR and PDR pupil size (D) shown for different conditions and experimental groups. In A-B, the shaded colored regions surrounding the pupil response curves represent the ± standard error range (across participants) for different conditions. In B, the light and darkness epochs for pupil size are shaded in colors. In C-D, the large-squares and error-bars represent the mean values ± standard error across participants. The small circles represent the mean value for each participant. White: background luminance 20 cd/m2. Bright: background luminance 10 cd/m2. NoChange: background luminance 10 cd/m2. Dark: background luminance 5 cd/m2. Black: background luminance 0.1 cd/m2. healthy younger adults. YOUNG: healthy younger adults. OLD: healthy age-matched older adults. LLD: late-life depression patients. Bkgd: background. *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001

Full size image

Pupil metrics

Consistent with the literature [9, 11,12,13], the PROL (pupil response onset latency) (Fig. 4A) was significantly faster in the light compared to the dark condition, with shorter PROL in the higher contrast conditions regardless of luminance change polarity (background luminance main effect: F(3,228) = 51.528, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.404), with 286, 295, 700, and 598 ms for the white, bright, dark, and black condition, respectively. Moreover, there was a significant interaction between groups and background luminance conditions (F(6,228) = 2.443, p = 0.049, ηp2 = 0.060). The simple main effects revealed significant differences between groups in all luminance conditions (all p < = 0.011) except for the black condition (p = 0.097). Post hoc comparison of groups determined that YOUNG (p < 0.001) and OLD (p = 0.036) participants had significantly faster PROLs than LLD participants in the dark condition. In max amplitude (Fig. 4B), there was a significant difference between conditions (F(3,228) = 904.295, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.922), with larger constriction or dilation amplitudes with higher contrast conditions. A significant interaction between groups and conditions was obtained (F(6,228) = 24.250, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.390). Moreover, the simple main effects further revealed significant differences in the all conditions (all p < = 0.008). Post hoc comparison of groups determined that YOUNG participants had significantly larger constriction than OLD participants in the white (p = 0.015) and bright (p = 0.010) conditions. Additionally, YOUNG participants had significantly larger pupil dilation than OLD (p < 0.001) and LLD (p < 0.001) participants in the black condition.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Pupil metrics for each experimental group. Mean PROL (A), max response amplitude (B), max response peak velocity (C), and time to peak response (D) shown for different conditions and experimental groups. In A-D, the large-squares and error-bars represent the mean values ± standard error across participants. The small circles represent the mean value for each participant. White: background luminance 20 cd/m2. Bright: background luminance 10 cd/m2. Dark: background luminance 5 cd/m2. Black: background luminance 0.1 cd/m2. healthy younger adults. YOUNG: healthy younger adults. OLD: healthy age-matched older adults. LLD: late-life depression patients. PROL: pupil response onset latency. Peak Velocity: peak pupil response velocity. Max amplitude: peak pupil response size. Peak Time: time to peak response. *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001

Full size image

In peak velocity (Fig. 4C), there was a significant difference between conditions (F(3,228) = 608. 301, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.889), with larger constriction or dilation velocities with higher contrast conditions. A significant interaction between groups and conditions was obtained (F(6,228) = 7.663, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.168). Furthermore, the simple main effects revealed significant differences in the white (p = 0.004) and bright (p < 0.001) conditions. Post hoc pairwise comparison of groups determined that LLD and OLD participants made significantly smaller constriction than YOUNG participants in the white (OLD: p = 0.012; LLD: p < 0.001) and bright conditions (OLD: p = 0.021; LLD: p < 0.001). In peak time (Fig. 4D), there was a significant difference between conditions (F(3,228) = 1303.528, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.945). Holm post hoc comparison of conditions revealed significant differences between all conditions (all p < 0.001), showing larger peak times in the higher contrast conditions regardless of luminance change polarity. All other effects were not significant.

Correlations between neuropsychological test scores and pupil and eye blink rate measures

The relationship between neuropsychological tests scores and pupil and blink measures was examined. GDS-15 and PHQ-15 were used to respectively assess their disease severity and somatic symptoms, and MoCA was used to assess their cognitive function. LLD and OLD participants were collapsed, such that we can examine whether pupil and eye measures could correlate with these scores in ageing population, focusing on tonic pupil size, light and darkness reflex sizes, and blink rate (see “Methods and materials” section). As illustrated in Fig. 5, scores on the GDS-15 significantly correlated with light reflex CoV (Fig. 5B, R = 0.34, p = 0.02), darkness reflex CoV (Fig. 5C, R = 0.3, p = 0.04), and blink rate (Fig. 5D, R = 0.32, p = 0.027), showing severe depression symptoms correlating to higher light reflex CoV, lower darkness reflex CoV and higher blink rates. In contrast, GDS-15 scores did not correlate with tonic pupil and darkness reflex responses. Figure 6D illustrates a positive correlation between PHQ-15 score and blink rates (R = 0.37, p < 0.001), showing a more severe levels of somatization correlating with higher blink rates. Scores on the PHQ-15 did not correlate with other pupil measures (Fig. 6A-C). As displayed in Fig. 7, tonic pupil size significantly correlated with MoCA scores (Fig. 7A, R = 0.29, p = 0.034), with higher pupil sizes correlating with lower scores. MoCA scores did not correlate with other measures (Fig. 7B-D).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Inter-individual correlations between pupil and blink responses and GDS-15 scores. Correlation between GDS-15 scores and tonic pupil size (A), light reflex responses (B), light reflex responses (C), eye blink rate (D). OLD: healthy age-matched older adults. LLD: late-life depression patients. GDS: Geriatric Depression Scale

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Inter-individual correlations between pupil and blink responses and PHQ-15 scores. Correlation between PHQ-15 scores and tonic pupil size (A), light reflex responses (B), light reflex responses (C), eye blink rate (D). OLD: healthy age-matched older adults. LLD: late-life depression patients. PHQ: Patient Health Questionnaire

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Inter-individual correlations between pupil and blink responses and MoCA scores. Correlation between MoCA scores and tonic pupil size (A), light reflex responses (B), light reflex responses (C), eye blink rate (D). OLD: healthy age-matched older adults. LLD: late-life depression patients. MoCA: Montreal Cognitive Assessment

Full size image

Discussion

To investigate autonomic and dopaminergic functions in Late-Life Depression (LLD) patients, we analyzed the dynamics of pupil light and darkness reflex, as well as tonic pupil size and eye blink rates in a task with varying background luminance to evoke PLR and PDR in LLD, younger, and older healthy participants. Tonic pupil sizes differed between groups, with significantly larger pupil sizes in YOUNG compared to OLD. Moreover, eye blink rates varied significantly between the three groups, with lower rates in both YOUNG and OLD compared to LLD. Furthermore, light reflex responses differed between groups, with greater reflex responses in YOUNG compared to LLD. Although differences between LLD and OLD were noted, they were not statistically significant. In darkness reflex, while reflex sizes were larger in YOUNG compared to OLD and LLD, there were generally no significant differences between LLD and OLD. Additionally, depression symptom severity correlated with light reflex and darkness response variabilities and blink rates. In contrast, somatic symptom severity only correlated with blink rates. MoCA scores correlated with tonic pupil sizes. Overall, our findings demonstrate altered pupil and blink rate responses in LLD compared to OLD and YOUNG, highlighting the value of analyzing all these measures to gain insights into the impact of depressive symptoms on older adults.

Pupil light and darkness reflex and autonomic function

The PLR is an effective tool for studying autonomic functions in the diseased population [9, 16]. While autonomic dysfunction in individuals with depression has been noted [17,18,19], no prior studies have identified altered PLR or PDR in LLD. Here, we examined both PLR and PDR in LLD as well as in YOUNG and OLD. Consistent with the literature [13], PLR and PDR induced by background luminance changes responded more significantly and rapidly in YOUNG compared to OLD. Additionally, the change intensity of background luminance systematically affected PLR and PDR responses, with more robust responses obtained in the high-contrast change condition (i.e., 100% contrast). Importantly, trends of differences between LLD and OLD were observed, with smaller responses in LLD compared to OLD, although they often did not survive multiple comparisons. These results were generally consistent with findings in younger depressed adults [25,26,27, 29, 30, 76], showing attenuated PLR-related responses in depression individuals. Furthermore, consistent with this idea, patients with larger improvements after repetitive-TMS treatment exhibit larger pupil constriction amplitudes [34]. Moreover, larger differences between LLD and OLD were often noted in the low-contrast background luminance condition (i.e., 50% contrast). In line with previous research [30], this information informed subsequent research to consider the possibility of a ceiling effect implemented by a larger luminance change intensity. Furthermore, light and darkness reflex response variability indexed by the Coefficient of Variation (CoV) correlated with the scores of GDS-15, suggesting the value of analyzing response variability to reveal depression symptom severity.

While depression individuals often exhibit attenuated PLR-related responses [25,26,27, 29, 30, 76, 77], other effects have also been noted. Some studies report no differences in PLR-related responses between individuals with depression and healthy controls [28]. Shorter PLR response latencies are noted in individuals with depression compared to healthy controls [25]. Moreover, a recent study found larger PLR responses in depression patients with suicide risk compared to non-suicidal depressed patients and healthy controls [32], and hyperarousal is associated with suicidal ideation in depression patients [33]. These results together suggest that individuals with depression may generally exhibit attenuated PLR-related responses, however, those with suicide risk may display more rigorous PLR responses, indicating a state of hyperarousal. Because a previous study was conducted with a small cohort [32], future studies are certainly needed to further investigate this line of research. Overall, pupil light and darkness reflexes were modulated by age, and more blunted responses were seen in patients with LLD.

Tonic pupil size and the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system

Tonic pupil size (baseline) has been associated with a tonic firing mode of LC activity [37]. The LC is a major nucleus that releases norepinephrine throughout most of the brain via its extensive network of axons axons [37, 78]. Research has shown that the LC-NE system changes as a function of age, and the relationship between LC-NE changes and cognitive decline has been consistently noted [38, 39, 79, 80]. Consistent with this idea, using tonic pupil size to indirectly index tonic LC activity, we found smaller baseline pupil sizes in OLD compared to YOUNG, consistent with previous research [13]. Interestingly, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores, as an index of cognitive function, negatively correlated with tonic pupil size in older individuals, with smaller, not larger, pupil sizes correlating with higher MoCA scores. These results were not in line with our expectations, and this could be due to altered responses in LLD, as baseline pupil size seemed to be larger in LLD compared to OLD, although these differences were not statistically significant. Future investigations are necessary to test these observed correlations.

Eye blink rate and the dopaminergic system

While deficits in the dopaminergic system have been noted in depression patients [40, 41], its influences on LLD are more complex and require more thorough investigation [81]. Here, we used spontaneous eye blink rate to indirectly measure central brain dopamine activity [42,43,44,45, 64]. Consistent with previous studies in depressed adults (Mackintosh et al., 1983; Ebert et al., 1996; Byrne et al., 2016), LLD exhibited significantly higher blink rates compared to YOUNG and OLD. These results provide evidence suggesting deficits in the dopaminergic system in LLD. Moreover, scores of Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) and GDS-15 positively correlated with blink rates in older participants, suggesting a functional role of this deficit in correlating with depression and somatic symptom severity. Notably, spontaneous eye blink rates are modulated by diurnal variation [82]. While participants here were collected from 9 am to 4 pm, and spontaneous eye blink rates should be similar in these time periods [82], future investigations are certainly needed to take this factor into consideration.

Medication effects on eye blink and pupil responses

LLD patients recruited were not discontinued from their medication, and both LLD patients and OLD controls were indeed taking different medications. It is thus important to consider these medications as potential variables in our analyses because, as shown previously, some medications such as SNRIs can affect pupil responses [83]. Moreover, previous research has argued attenuated PLR responses in depression individuals are mediated by medication [77]. To control for medication influences, we used linear mixed models, allowing us to include medication type as a fixed factor in addition to the effects of patient group, focusing on LLD and OLD groups. As illustrated in Additional file 1, significant (or trending) differences between LLD and OLD persist in tonic pupil size variability, blink rates, and pupil response onset latencies for the darkness reflex even after taking medication type into account. Furthermore, other drugs, as displayed in Table 2, that can potentially affect the autonomic nervous system were also taken into consideration. As shown in Additional file 2, blink rates were significantly influenced by beta blockers and benzodiazepine. However, more importantly, the group effects remain unchanged after accounting for these drugs. These results together suggest that the observed differences between LLD and OLD cannot be solely explained by the effects of medication.

Limitations and future directions

The current paradigm allowed us to investigate the parasympathetic and sympathetic function among the LLD, OLD, and YOUNG groups by systematically varying the background luminance level. However, future work would benefit from simplifying the luminance change conditions to increase statistical power for further explorations in this line of research. Moreover, many exploratory analyses were conducted without a primary hypothesis, increasing the risk of Type I error, and the absence of a structured diagnostic interview is certainly a limitation. Furthermore, older participants may experience vision-related issues, which could potentially affect their task performance. While these participants have no history of eye-related diseases and their vision, indirectly measured by a sub-item Construction in MMSE, was normal, it is advisable to involve an ophthalmologist in future investigations to ensure that participants do not have ocular diseases such as cataracts and macular degeneration. Note that the current study did not conduct urine drug screening for nicotine and cannabis use, and this needs to be taken into account for future studies. Furthermore, research has suggested a 20-minute period of dark adaptation for consistent pupil constriction responses [84]. Future research should also consider this factor to obtain a more reliable PLR response. Moreover, while the sympathetic function can be measured by the PDR, this function is arguably measured more effectively using affectively salient stimuli [85]. Future work using emotional stimuli is needed to examine sympathetic function in LLD. Additionally, while some disruptions of PLR modulations were observed here, some previous studies have shown larger effects in pupil responses to blue light in depression patients [28,29,30,31], warranting further investigation using blue light. Finally, the current study is limited by the characterization of altered pupil and eye blink responses in a small study cohort consisting of only younger and older adults. Future work with larger study cohorts is certainly needed to investigate these altered pupil and eye blink responses in LLD.

Conclusions

Pupil light and darkness reflex have been extensively used to investigate autonomic functions in healthy and clinical populations [9, 16]. However, pupil dynamics is also used as a proxy for neural activity associated with neural circuits beyond the circuitry responsible for pupil light and darkness reflexes [86, 87]. Given that pupillometry is an easy-to-measure technique and freely available to most modern video-based eye-tracking systems, exploring pupil responses in different behavioral tasks is crucial for developing more objective assessments to examine LLD deficits in other functions. In the current study, the pupil light and darkness reflex paradigm were used, showing the disrupted modulation of pupil and eye blink responses in LLD. These results highlight the potential of using this low-cost approach to help objectively detect LLD and evaluate the effectiveness of treatment outcomes.

Availability of data and materials

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Husain MM. Age-related characteristics of depression: a preliminary STAR*D report. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2005;13:852–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alexopoulos GS. Mechanisms and treatment of late-life depression. Psychiatry. 2019;9:188.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aziz R, Steffens DC. What are the causes of late-life depression? Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2013;36:497–516.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Chang TY, Liao SC, Chang CM, Wu CS, Huang WL, Hwang JJ, et al. Barriers to depression care among middle-aged and older adults in Taiwan’s universal healthcare system. Lancet Reg Heal Pac. 2022;26:100501.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mitty E, Flores S. Suicide in late life. Geriatr Nurs (Minneap). 2008;29:160–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Frasure-Smith N, Lespérance F, Talajic M. Depression following myocardial infarction: impact on 6-month survival. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1993;270:1819–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Royall DR, Schillerstrom JE, Piper PK, Chiodo LK. Depression and mortality in elders referred for geriatric psychiatry consultation. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2007;8:318–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McDougal DH, Gamlin PD. Autonomic control of the eye. Compr Physiol. 2015;5:439–73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Loewenfeld IE. The pupil: anatomy, physiology, and clinical applications. Boston: Butterworth- Heinemann; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  10. May PJ, Reiner A, Gamlin PD, May PJ, Reiner A, Gamlin PD. Autonomic regulation of the Eye. Oxf Res Encycl Neurosci. 2019:1–27. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=May%2C+P.+J.%2C+Reiner%2C+A.%2C+%26+Gamlin%2C+P.+D.+%282019%29.+Autonomic+regulation+of+the+eye.+Oxford+Research+Encyclopedia+of+Neuroscience.

  11. Wang CA, Munoz DP. Modulation of stimulus contrast on the human pupil orienting response. Eur J Neurosci. 2014;40:2822–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Barbur JL, Harlow AJ, Sahraie A. Pupillary responses to stimulus structure, colour and movement. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1992;12:137–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bitsios P, Prettyman R, Szabadi E. Changes in autonomic function with age: a study of pupillary kinetics in healthy young and old people. Age Ageing. 1996;25:432–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Clarke RJ, Zhang H, Gamlin PDR. Primate pupillary light reflex: receptive field characteristics of pretectal luminance neurons. J Neurophysiol. 2003;89:3168–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nisida I, Okada H, Nakano O. The activity of the ciliospinal centers and their inhibition in pupillary light reflex. Jpn J Physiol. 1960;10:73–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hall CA, Chilcott RP. Eyeing up the future of the pupillary light reflex in neurodiagnostics. Diagnostics. 2018;8:19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Broadley AJM, Frenneaux MP, Moskvina V, Jones CJH, Korszun A. Baroreflex sensitivity is reduced in depression. Psychosom Med. 2005;67:648–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kemp AH, Quintana DS, Gray MA, Felmingham KL, Brown K, Gatt JM. Impact of depression and antidepressant treatment on heart rate variability: a review and meta-analysis. Biol Psychiatry. 2010;67:1067–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Licht CMM, De Geus EJC, Zitman FG, Hoogendijk WJG, Van Dyck R, Penninx BWJH. Association between major depressive disorder and heart rate variability in the Netherlands study of depression and anxiety (NESDA). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65:1358–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bär KJ, Letzsch A, Jochum T, Wagner G, Greiner W, Sauer H. Loss of efferent vagal activity in acute schizophrenia. J Psychiatr Res. 2005;39:519–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bär K-J, Rachow T, Schulz S, Bassarab K, Haufe S, Berger S, et al. The phrenic component of acute schizophrenia – a name and its physiological reality. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e33459.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Jochum T, Hoyme J, Schulz S, Weißenfels M, Voss A, Bär KJ. Diverse autonomic regulation of pupillary function and the cardiovascular system during alcohol withdrawal. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016;159:142–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Huang M, Shah A, Su S, Goldberg J, Lampert RJ, Levantsevych OM, et al. Association of depressive symptoms and heart rate variability in Vietnam war-era twins: a longitudinal twin difference study. JAMA Psychiat. 2018;75:705–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. McCall WV, Rosenquist PB, Miller BJ. Development of autonomic nervous system assays as point-of-care tests to supplement clinical judgment in risk assessment for suicidal behavior: a review. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2022;24:11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fountoulakis K, Fotiou F, Iacovides A, Tsiptsios J, Goulas A, Tsolaki M, et al. Changes in pupil reaction to light in melancholic patients. Int J Psychophysiol. 1999;31:121.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang J, Fan Y, Zhao X, Chen N. Pupillometry in Chinese female patients with depression: a pilot study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11:2236–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Mestanikova A, Ondrejka I, Mestanik M, Cesnekova D, Visnovcova Z, Bujnakova I, et al. Pupillary light reflex is altered in adolescent depression. Physiol Res. 2017;66:277–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Feigl B, Ojha G, Hides L, Zele AJ. Melanopsin-driven pupil response and light exposure in non-seasonal major depressive disorder. Front Neurol. 2018;9:764.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Berman G, Muttuvelu D, Berman D, Larsen JI, Licht RW, Ledolter J, et al. Decreased retinal sensitivity in depressive disorder: a controlled study. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2018;137:231.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Laurenzo SA, Kardon R, Ledolter J, Poolman P, Schumacher AM, Potash JB, et al. Pupillary response abnormalities in depressive disorders. Psychiatry Res. 2016;246:492–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Roecklein KA, Franzen PL, Wescott DL, Hasler BP, Miller MA, Donofry SD, et al. Melanopsin-driven pupil response in summer and winter in unipolar seasonal affective disorder. J Affect Disord. 2021;291:93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. McCall WV, Sareddy S, Youssef NA, Miller BJ, Rosenquist PB. The pupillary light reflex as a point-of-care test for suicide risk: preliminary results. Psychiatry Res. 2021;295:113582.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. McCall WV, Dinsmore JT, Brown A, Ribbens LT, Rosenquist PB, McCloud L, et al. Reproducibility of the pupillary light reflex over short intervals in psychiatric patients and community volunteers. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2023;43:365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Citrenbaum C, Corlier J, Ngo D, Vince-Cruz N, Wilson A, Wilke S, et al. Pretreatment pupillary reactivity is associated with outcome of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). J Affect Disord. 2023;339:412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Shechtman O. The Coefficient of Variation as an Index of Measurement Reliability. 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Peltsch A, Hemraj A, Garcia A, Munoz DP. Saccade deficits in amnestic mild cognitive impairment resemble mild Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Neurosci. 2014;39:2000–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Aston-Jones G, Cohen JD. An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: adaptive gain and optimal performance. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2005;28:403–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mather M, Harley CW. The Locus Coeruleus: essential for maintaining cognitive function and the aging brain. Trends Cogn Sci. 2016;20:214–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Liu KY, Kievit RA, Tsvetanov KA, Betts MJ, Düzel E, Rowe JB, et al. Noradrenergic-dependent functions are associated with age-related locus coeruleus signal intensity differences. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1712.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Dunlop BW, Nemeroff CB. The role of dopamine in the pathophysiology of depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64:327.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Grace AA. Dysregulation of the dopamine system in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia and depression. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2016;17:524.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Karson CN. Spontaneous eye-blink rates and dopaminergic systems. Brain. 1983;106:643–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mackert A, Flechtner KM, Woyth C, Frick K. Increased blink rates in schizophrenics. Influences of neuroleptics and psychopathology. Schizophr Res. 1991;4:41–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Shukla D. Blink rate as clinical indicator. Neurology. 1985;35:286.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Taylor JR, Elsworth JD, Lawrence MS, Sladek JR, Roth RH, Redmond DE. Spontaneous blink rates correlate with dopamine levels in the caudate nucleus of MPTP-treated monkeys. Exp Neurol. 1999;158:214–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Mackintosh JH, Kumar R, Kitamura T. Blink rate in psychiatric illness. Br J Psychiatry. 1983;143:55–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ebert D, Albert R, Hammon G, Strasser B, May A, Merz A. Eye-blink rates and depression. Is the antidepressant effect of sleep deprivation mediated by the dopamine system? Neuropsychopharmacology. 1996;15:332.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Byrne KA, Norris DD, Worthy DA. Dopamine, depressive symptoms, and decision-making: the relationship between spontaneous eye blink rate and depressive symptoms predicts Iowa Gambling Task performance. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2016;16:23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:373–4.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:695.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. De Craen AJM, Heeren TJ, Gussekloo J. Accuracy of the 15-item geriatric depression scale (GDS-15) in a community sample of the oldest old. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2003;18:63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The PHQ-15: validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms. Psychosom Med. 2002;64:258.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Lee S, Ma YL, Tsang A. Psychometric properties of the Chinese 15-item patient health questionnaire in the general population of hong kong. J Psychosom Res. 2011;71:69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Tsai CF, Lee WJ, Wang SJ, Shia BC, Nasreddine Z, Fuh JL. Psychometrics of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and its subscales: validation of the Taiwanese version of the MoCA and an item response theory analysis. Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24:651.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Liao Y, Yeh T, Ko H, Luoh C, Lu F. Geriatric depression scale–validity and reliabilty of the chinese-translated version: a preliminary study. Chang J Med. 1995;1:11–7.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Wang C-A, McInnis H, Brien DC, Pari G, Munoz DP. Disruption of pupil size modulation correlates with voluntary motor preparation deficits in Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychologia. 2016;80:176–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Chen JT, Yep R, Hsu YF, Cherng YG, Wang CA. Investigating arousal, saccade preparation, and global luminance effects on microsaccade behavior. Front Hum Neurosci. 2021;15:95.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Kret ME, Sjak-Shie EE. Preprocessing pupil size data: guidelines and code. Behav Res Methods. 2019;51:1336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Nguyen KT, Liang WK, Juan CH, Wang CA. Time-frequency analysis of pupil size modulated by global luminance, arousal, and saccade preparation signals using Hilbert-Huang transform. Int J Psychophysiol. 2022;176:89–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Mathôt S, Fabius J, Van Heusden E, Van der Stigchel S. Safe and sensible preprocessing and baseline correction of pupil-size data. Behav Res Methods. 2018;50:94–106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Wang CA, Tworzyanski L, Huang J, Munoz DP. Response anisocoria in the pupillary light and darkness reflex. Eur J Neurosci. 2018;48:3379–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Chen S, Epps J. Using task-induced pupil diameter and blink rate to infer cognitive load. Hum Comput Interact. 2014;29:390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Jongkees BJ, Colzato LS. Spontaneous eye blink rate as predictor of dopamine-related cognitive function—a review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;71:58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Cruz AAV, Garcia DM, Pinto CT, Cechetti SP. Spontaneous eyeblink activity. Ocular Surf. 2011;9:29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Portello JK, Rosenfield M, Chu CA. Blink rate, incomplete blinks and computer vision syndrome. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90:482.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Chu CA, Rosenfield M, Portello JK. Blink patterns: reading from a computer screen versus hard copy. Optom Vis Sci. 2014;91:297.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Yu M, Kautz MA, Thomas ML, Johnson D, Hotchkiss ER, Russo MB. Operational implications of varying ambient light levels and time-of-day effects on saccadic velocity and pupillary light reflex. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2007;27:130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Kardon R. Pupillary light reflex. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1995;6:20–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Steinhauer SR, Hakerem G. The pupillary response in cognitive psychophysiology and schizophrenia. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1992;658:182–204.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Barbur J. Learning from the pupil-studies of basic mechanisms and clinical applications. In: Chalupa LM, Werner JS, editors. The visual neurosciences. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2004. p. 641–56.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Wang CA, Muggleton NG, Chang YH, Barquero C, Kuo YC. Time-on-task effects on human pupillary and saccadic metrics after theta burst transcranial magnetic stimulation over the frontal eye field. IBRO Neurosci Reports. 2023;15:364–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Oster J, Huang J, White BJ, Radach R, Itti L, Munoz DP, et al. Pupillary responses to differences in luminance, color and set size. Exp Brain Res. 2022;1:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Bergamin O, Kardon RH. Latency of the pupil light reflex: sample rate, stimulus intensity, and variation in normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:1546–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. JASP Team. JASP (Version 0.10.2). Computer software. 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Roecklein K, Wong P, Ernecoff N, Miller M, Donofry S, Kamarck M, et al. The post illumination pupil response is reduced in seasonal affective disorder. Psychiatry Res. 2013;210:150.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Bär KJ, Greiner W, Jochum T, Friedrich M, Wagner G, Sauer H. The influence of major depression and its treatment on heart rate variability and pupillary light reflex parameters. J Affect Disord. 2004;82:245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Poe GR, Foote S, Eschenko O, Johansen JP, Bouret S, Aston-Jones G, et al. Locus coeruleus: a new look at the blue spot. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2020;21:644–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Joshi S. The impact of age and Alzheimer’s disease on locus coeruleus mediated neuromodulation of neural circuits and goal-directed behavior. 2023.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  80. Mather M, Poeppel D, Mangun GR, Gazzaniga MS. The locus coeruleus-norepinephrine. Cogn Neurosci. 2020;91:12.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Taylor WD, Zald DH, Felger JC, Christman S, Claassen DO, Horga G, et al. Influences of dopaminergic system dysfunction on late-life depression. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27:180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Barbato G, Ficca G, Muscettola G, Fichele M, Beatrice M, Rinaldi F. Diurnal variation in spontaneous eye-blink rate. Psychiatry Res. 2000;93:145.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Bitsios P, Szabadi E, Bradshaw CM. Comparison of the effects of venlafaxine, paroxetine and desipramine on the pupillary light reflex in man. Psychopharmacology. 1999;143:286.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Wang B, Shen C, Zhang L, Qi L, Yao L, Chen J, et al. Dark adaptation-induced changes in rod, cone and intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell (ipRGC) sensitivity differentially affect the pupil light response (PLR). Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;253:1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Yang X, Fridman AJ, Unsworth N, Casement MD. Pupillary motility responses to affectively salient stimuli in individuals with depression or elevated risk of depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2023;148:105125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Joshi S, Gold JI. Pupil size as a window on neural substrates of cognition. Trends Cogn Sci. 2020;24:466–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Strauch C, Wang CA, Einhäuser W, Van der Stigchel S, Naber M. Pupillometry as an integrated readout of distinct attentional networks. Trends Neurosci. 2022;45(8):635–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants from Taiwan National Science and Technology Council (110-2636-H-008-004, 111-2628-H-008-003, 112-2628-H-038-001 and 113-2628-H-038-001) to CW, and (112-2410-H-038-013) to JC. We thank Ying-Chun Kuo for her outstanding technical assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, New Taipei City, Taiwan

    Yao-Tung Lee

  2. Department of Psychiatry, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan

    Yao-Tung Lee

  3. Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Yao-Tung Lee

  4. Eye-Tracking Laboratory, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, New Taipei City, Taiwan

    Yi-Hsuan Chang, Hsu-Jung Tsai & Chin-An Wang

  5. Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, College of Health Science and Technology, National Central University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan

    Yi-Hsuan Chang

  6. Taipei Neuroscience Institute, Taipei Medical University, New Taipei City, Taiwan

    Shu-Ping Chao

  7. Dementia Center, Department of Neurology, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, New Taipei City, Taiwan

    Shu-Ping Chao

  8. Department of Medical Image, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, New Taipei City, Taiwan

    David Yen-Ting Chen

  9. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei City, Taiwan

    David Yen-Ting Chen

  10. Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Jui-Tai Chen, Yih‐Giun Cherng & Chin-An Wang

  11. Department of Anesthesiology, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, New Taipei City, Taiwan

    Jui-Tai Chen, Yih‐Giun Cherng & Chin-An Wang

Authors
  1. Yao-Tung Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yi-Hsuan Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hsu-Jung Tsai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shu-Ping Chao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Yen-Ting Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jui-Tai Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yih‐Giun Cherng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Chin-An Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception. C.W. designed research; Y.L., H.T. and S.C. performed research; C.W. and Y.C. analyzed data; C.W. wrote the first draft of the manuscript; all authors provided comments and edits on various drafts of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chin-An Wang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by Institutional Review Board of the Taipei Medical University, Taiwan, and were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants and/or their legal guardian(s).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, YT., Chang, YH., Tsai, HJ. et al. Altered pupil light and darkness reflex and eye-blink responses in late-life depression. BMC Geriatr 24, 545 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05034-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05034-w

Keywords

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us