Talk:Pupillary light reflex

Any
Any objections to moving this back to pupillary reflex, as that is what the article is about. It discusses more than just constriction. Tristanb 02:42, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point - I moved it and edited it to clarify. Nephron 23:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

thank you good point 2

Unclear sentence
This sentence is unclear to me:

Pupillary constriction is sometimes used as a synonym for pupillary reflex but something more general.

Perhaps there is an "is" missing between "but" and "something"? I'm not an expert on this topic, so I hesitate to make this change myself. --Spiff666 13:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Review
I would like to request a review of these informations on the article:

"Normally, each pupil should constrict with light shone into either eye. On testing each reflex for each eye, several patterns are possible.


 * Optic nerve damage on one side
 * The ipsilateral (on the side with the damage) direct reflex is lost
 * The contralateral (on the other side) direct reflex is intact
 * The ipsilateral consensual reflex is intact (because light shone into the opposite eye can signal to the brain, causing constriction of both pupils via the normal oculomotor nerves
 * The contralateral consensual reflex is lost (because light shone into the eye on the damaged side cannot signal to the brain)"

I think the highlighted things are wrong but I'm not really sure. Anyone could help me? Thanks Rhcastilhos (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ops I solved my misunderstanding. The article is correct. Rhcastilhos (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger
I suggest that Pupillary response be merged into this article. A "reflex" is the same as a "response". The only difference between the two articles is that this article is more informative and better named. If there are no objections within the next month, I'll merge the two. Fuzzform (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Against Merger
While the Pupillary response article isn't the best on it's own, I wouldn't merge it into this article. This article is to do with how the pupils respond to light. There are other pupillary reflexes, accommodation of the pupil when focusing at a near object being one important clinically tested one. I think it would be incorrect to include such reflexes under the heading of light reflexes, even under an "Other Reflexes" heading. I would suggest that if anything, Pupillary light reflex would be best suited under a broader heading of Pupillary Reflexes, along with non-light related reflexes. That would probably take quite a bit of work though. Nairdakb 15:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Error in neuron pathway (?)
I don't have a textbook with me currently, but I was taught that the bilateralism of the reflex is because the pretectal N. sends fibers to the EW nucleus on both sides (through the posterior commisure), and not like the way it is described here where the reflex is due to each EW controlling both eyes. I'd be happy if someone could clarifyMERRF (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Merging Consensual response
It's been a year and a half since the merge tag was introduced onto the Consensual response page, and this one. I'm in the process of wikifying that page, as part of the wikification drive. The page seems to be about the response of both sides of the body to a stimulus on only one side. They use the eye as the only example, but the effect is not limited to the eye, so I move to NOT merge that page into this one. Since such a long time has elapsed, with no other opinions, and the wikifying task is at hand, I'm going to remove the merge tags and attempt to improve the Consensual response page. Nihola (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Retinohypothalamic tract
Seems strange that the Retinohypothalamic tract is not mentioned in this article, whether it is considered to be part of the optic nerve, or not. --Hordaland (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Autonomic nervous system
I was wondering if it might be informative to talk about the parasympathetic and sympathetic systems here or not. From my understanding of it, constriction of the pupil in the light reflex is indirectly controlled by the parasympathetic system (which inhibits/activates the Edinger-Westphal nucleus) or is that better left for a different page? Moonpe11 (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Terminology does not match explanations
"It is a misconception to think that, for example, left consensual pupillary reflex is the left eye pupillary reflex when light is shone to the right eye. Likewise, this applies to the terminology "right consensual pupillary reflex"."

This is the exact opposite of what's shown in the 'Schematics' section.

"Left consensual light reflex involves neural segments 2, 4, and 7. Segment 2 is the afferent limb. Segments 4 and 7 form the efferent limb."

Segment 2 is the afferent limb from the right eye, while 4 and 7 form the efferent limb to the left eye. So that would mean that the Left consensual light reflex is the left consensual pupillary reflex is indeed left eye pupillary reflex when light is shone to the right eye. Anyone have any idea which one might be wrong? (I am leaning towards mistakes in Terminology, but not sure).

EDIT: The terminology also does not match the 'Clinical Significance' section.

I am a dancing pupa (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)