You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 70 No. 1, July 1963 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ARTICLES
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (10)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

The Iris as Pharmacologic Indicator

I. Effect of Physostigmine and of Pilocarpine on Pupillary Movements in Normal Man

IRENE E. LOEWENFELD, PhD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1963;70(1):42-51.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The literature concerning the influence of drugs upon the iris, too voluminous to be presented here, can be grouped roughly into four categories, namely: (1) reports that dealt with the discovery and description of drugs or poisons, in which the pupillary effects were part of the general clinical findings; (2) investigations designed to reveal the mode of action of various drugs; (3) experiments in which drugs of known action were used to clarify the mechanism of physiological phenomena directly or indirectly related to pupillary movements; and (4) description and evaluation of drugs used in ophthalmology for the specific purpose of dilating or contracting the pupil.

In spite of the great popularity which the iris has enjoyed as an indicator in pharmacological experiments, the number of investigations in which the pupillary movements were registered accurately is relatively small. This fact and the great variations in drug responses between species, among individuals, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]


Author Affiliations

New York

Department of Ophthalmology, Laboratory of Pupillography, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, and the Presbyterian Hospital.


Footnotes

Submitted for publication Oct 31, 1962.

This work was supported by the Harriman Fund and by a grant from the US Public Health Service (Sens. Dis. B-253).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1963 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.