illumination. Further, to associate AA among genders, age groups, race and refractive error for different levels of room illumination was not significant (p > 0.05). However, amplitude of accommodation between 15-21years and 22-28 years showed significant (p = 0.047) difference for the first room illumination. CONCLUSION:The illumination has no clinically significant effect on amplitude of accommodation. INTRODUCTIONSince 1972, research into the effects of the VDU on the eye expanded [1] . Due to technological advances, millions of people such as office worker and college students are using computers for prolonged hours. However, after prolonged uses of these visual display units, the symptoms reported were eyestrain, tired eyes, headache, blurred vision, irritation, burning sensation, redness, double vision, neck pain, backache which might caused by combination of individual visual problems, poor workplace conditions and improper work habits [2][3] . On top of that, eye related symptoms reported as the most common health problem among VDT users [4][5][6] . To measure amplitude of accommodation is one of the necessary part of an eye examination to find out optimal refractive corrections and to reduce the eye related symptoms when doing near work especially while using visual display unit as a target. In addition, accommodation was proven to have association with the symptom of visual fatigue and asthenopia while doing near work. Abnormality associated with accommodation such as accommodative insufficiency, accommodative infacility and lag of accommodation reported among video display terminal (VDU) users in Nepal [7] . Several other studies have shown that visual tasks using visual display unit (VDU) terminals may induce temporary effects in the Convenience sampling method applied. The data analysis carried out by using one way repeated measure ANOVA, to look into the changes in amplitude of accommodation in different illuminations (23 Lux, 17 Lux and 4 Lux). RESULT: 32 subjects' data analyzed. Amplitude of accommodation measured via minus-lens method. No significant change noted among three levels of room illumination (p > 0.05) with the mean difference of 0.222DS from the first room illumination to third room