Consensus and contention in beauty judgment.

Variance across participants is at the heart of the centuries-old debate about the universality of beauty. Beauty's belonging to the eye of the beholder implies large interindividual variance, while beauty as a universal object property implies the opposite. To characterize the variance at the center of this debate, we selected two quartets with either high- or low-variance images with high typicality and a given mean beauty. The quartets have high or low variance across 50 participants (group variance) and correspondingly high or low variance across images of a quartet for each participant (quartet variance). We asked 52 new participants to estimate their own mean and quartet variance. Participants successfully predicted their quartet mean but failed to predict their quartet variance. Though invisible, beauty variance is essential to prediction, both in theory and in practice. The quartets show that mean beauty is not the whole story - beauty variance is heterogeneous.

Reflexive Eye Closure in Response to Cone and Melanopsin Stimulation: A Study of Implicit Measures of Light Sensitivity in Migraine.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To quantify interictal photophobia in migraine with and without aura using reflexive eye closure as an implicit measure of light sensitivity and to assess the contribution of melanopsin and cone signals to these responses. METHODS: Participants were screened to meet criteria for 1 of 3 groups: headache-free (HF) controls, migraine without aura (MO), and migraine with visual aura (MA). MO and MA participants were included if they endorsed ictal and interictal photophobia. Exclusion criteria included impaired vision, inability to collect usable pupillometry, and history of either head trauma or seizure. Participants viewed light pulses that selectively targeted melanopsin, the cones, or their combination during recording of orbicularis oculi EMG (OO-EMG) and blinking activity. RESULTS: We studied 20 participants in each group. MA and MO groups reported increased visual discomfort to light stimuli (discomfort rating, 400% contrast, MA: 4.84 [95% confidence interval 0.33, 9.35]; MO: 5.23 [0.96, 9.50]) as compared to HF controls (2.71 [0, 6.47]). Time course analysis of OO-EMG and blinking activity demonstrated that reflexive eye closure was tightly coupled to the light pulses. The MA group had greater OO-EMG and blinking activity in response to these stimuli (EMG activity, 400% contrast: 42.9%Δ [28.4, 57.4]; blink activity, 400% contrast: 11.2% [8.8, 13.6]) as compared to the MO (EMG activity, 400% contrast: 9.9%Δ [5.8, 14.0]; blink activity, 400% contrast: 4.7% [3.5, 5.9]) and HF control (EMG activity, 400% contrast: 13.2%Δ [7.1, 19.3]; blink activity, 400% contrast: 4.5% [3.1, 5.9]) groups. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that the intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs), which integrate melanopsin and cone signals, provide the afferent input for light-induced reflexive eye closure in a photophobic state. Moreover, we find a dissociation between implicit and explicit measures of interictal photophobia depending on a history of visual aura in migraine. This implies distinct pathophysiology in forms of migraine, interacting with separate neural pathways by which the amplification of ipRGC signals elicits implicit and explicit signs of visual discomfort.

Selective amplification of ipRGC signals accounts for interictal photophobia in migraine.

Second only to headache, photophobia is the most debilitating symptom reported by people with migraine. While the melanopsin-containing intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) are thought to play a role, how cone and melanopsin signals are integrated in this pathway to produce visual discomfort is poorly understood. We studied 60 people: 20 without headache and 20 each with interictal photophobia from migraine with or without visual aura. Participants viewed pulses of spectral change that selectively targeted melanopsin, the cones, or both and rated the degree of visual discomfort produced by these stimuli while we recorded pupil responses. We examined the data within a model that describes how cone and melanopsin signals are weighted and combined at the level of the retina and how this combined signal is transformed into a rating of discomfort or pupil response. Our results indicate that people with migraine do not differ from headache-free controls in the manner in which melanopsin and cone signals are combined. Instead, people with migraine demonstrate an enhanced response to integrated ipRGC signals for discomfort. This effect of migraine is selective for ratings of visual discomfort, in that an enhancement of pupil responses was not seen in the migraine group, nor were group differences found in surveys of other behaviors putatively linked to ipRGC function (chronotype, seasonal sensitivity, presence of a photic sneeze reflex). By revealing a dissociation in the amplification of discomfort vs. pupil response, our findings suggest a postretinal alteration in processing of ipRGC signals for photophobia in migraine.

A web-based, branching logic questionnaire for the automated classification of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To identify migraineurs and headache-free individuals with an online questionnaire and automated analysis algorithm. METHODS: We created a branching-logic, web-based questionnaire - the Penn Online Evaluation of Migraine - to obtain standardized headache history from a previously studied cohort. Responses were analyzed with an automated algorithm to assign subjects to one of several categories based on ICHD-3 (beta) criteria. Following a pre-registered protocol, the primary outcome was sensitivity and specificity for assignment of headache-free, migraine without aura, and migraine with aura labels, as compared to a prior classification by neurologist interview. RESULTS: Of 118 subjects contacted, 90 (76%) completed the questionnaire; of these 31 were headache-free controls, 29 migraine without aura, and 30 migraine with aura. Mean age was 41 ± 6 years and 76% were female. There were no significant demographic differences between groups. The median time to complete the questionnaire was 2.5 minutes (IQR: 1.5-3.4 minutes). Sensitivity of the Penn Online Evaluation of Migraine tool was 42%, 59%, 70%, and 83%, and specificity was 100%, 84%, 93%, and 90% for headache-free controls, migraine without aura, migraine with aura, and migraine overall, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Penn Online Evaluation of Migraine web-based questionnaire, and associated analysis routine, identifies headache-free and migraine subjects with good specificity. It may be useful for classifying subjects for large-scale research studies. Research study pre-registration: https://osf.io/sq9ef The following research study is a not a clinical trial.

Pulses of Melanopsin-Directed Contrast Produce Highly Reproducible Pupil Responses That Are Insensitive to a Change in Background Radiance.

Purpose: To measure the pupil response to pulses of melanopsin-directed contrast, and compare this response to those evoked by cone-directed contrast and spectrally narrowband stimuli. Methods: Three-second unipolar pulses were used to elicit pupil responses in human subjects across three sessions. Thirty subjects were studied in session 1, and most returned for sessions 2 and 3. The stimuli of primary interest were "silent substitution" cone- and melanopsin-directed modulations. Red and blue narrowband pulses delivered using the post-illumination pupil response (PIPR) paradigm were also studied. Sessions 1 and 2 were identical, whereas session 3 involved modulations around higher radiance backgrounds. The pupil responses were fit by a model whose parameters described response amplitude and temporal shape. Results: Group average pupil responses for all stimuli overlapped extensively across sessions 1 and 2, indicating high reproducibility. Model fits indicate that the response to melanopsin-directed contrast is prolonged relative to that elicited by cone-directed contrast. The group average cone- and melanopsin-directed pupil responses from session 3 were highly similar to those from sessions 1 and 2, suggesting that these responses are insensitive to background radiance over the range studied. The increase in radiance enhanced persistent pupil constriction to blue light. Conclusions: The group average pupil response to stimuli designed through silent substitution provides a reliable probe of the function of a melanopsin-mediated system in humans. As disruption of the melanopsin system may relate to clinical pathology, the reproducibility of response suggests that silent substitution pupillometry can test if melanopsin signals differ between clinical groups.