Accommodative Responses Under Different Stimulus Conditions

Lin, Huiling; Jiang, Baichuan

doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000000094

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Repetition of the statistical tests with slopes and accommodative error indices derived over stimulus intervals 1.00 to 4.00 D and 1.00 to 5.00 D rather than the linear range led to broadly similar conclusions, as also did the use of the simpler accommodative error area (AEA) instead of the accommodative error index …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…The difference between these does not differ significantly from zero (mean difference 0.05 D, 95 per cent confidence limits ‐0.02 and 0.11 D); however, it is consistent with the findings of Yeo, Kang and Tang, even though the tasks, methods used to control the stimulus vergence and other factors differed between the two studies. For example, some studies have found that the way that stimulus vergence is varied affects the accommodative response, as also does binocular compared to monocular viewing (Table ). Yeo, Kang and Tang's young Chinese subjects viewed the texts directly at different distances, whereas in the present case, involving adults, stimulus vergence was varied with lenses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accommodation response to Chinese and Latin characters in Chinese‐illiterate young adults

Radhakrishnan

Hartwig

Charman

et al. 2015

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Differences in accommodation when reading Chinese, as compared to Latin, characters have been suggested to have a role in the higher prevalence of myopia in some Asian countries. Yeo and colleagues (Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 156-163) found that, in Chineseliterate children, accommodation was marginally more accurate (by less than 0.05 D), when reading Chinese text. This was attributed to the additional cognitive demand associated with interpreting the more complex Chinese symbols. The present study compared responses to single Chinese and Latin characters, while controlling for cognitive demand. Methods: The monocular accommodative response was measured in Chinese-illiterate adults (10 emmetropes, mean spherical equivalent: -0.07 ± 0.42 D, age: 29.9 ± 4.2 years; 11 myopes, mean spherical equivalent: -4.28 ± 2.84 D, age: 31.7 ± 4.6 years) with an open-field autorefractor. Four Chinese and three Latin characters (approximately 1.15 degrees subtense) were individually presented on a display screen one metre away from the subject, while their vergence was varied over the range zero to 5.00 D using spectacle trial lenses. The slope and the accommodative error index (AEI) were calculated from the accommodative stimulus/response curves (ASRC). Results: No statistically significant differences were found between refractive groups or among characters within the same refractive group in ARSC slopes (Latin: 0.87 ± 0.14 for myopes versus 0.81 ± 0.12 for emmetropes; Chinese: 0.84 ± 0.12 for myopes versus 0.85 ± 0.12 for emmetropes). No significant differences were found between characters in accommodative error index either (Latin, 0.78 ± 0.42 D for myopes versus 1.15 ± 0.72 D for emmetropes; Chinese, 0.74 ± 0.37 D for myopes versus 1.17 ± 0.83 D for emmetropes). However, accommodative error indices and accommodative errors were significantly higher for emmetropes. Conclusion: Under controlled cognitive demand, Chinese and Latin characters elicited similar responses in both individual refractive groups. This study fails to support the hypothesis that development of myopia in some Asian populations is associated with larger lags of accommodation when reading or viewing Chinese characters.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accommodation response to Chinese and Latin characters in Chinese‐illiterate young adults

Radhakrishnan

Hartwig

Charman

et al. 2015

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ASRC obtained using each method was fitted with a third‐degree polynomial equation . Figure shows an example for a single subject.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The accommodative stimulus–response curve (ASRC) describes the accommodative response as a function of the accommodative stimulus. This curve can be used to derive important parameters of accommodation, such as the slope of the accommodative response, the accommodative error index, which is calculated from the area between the regression line for the linear part of the accommodative curve and the 1:1 line divided by the correlation coefficient and the accommodative error area, which is the area between the accommodative curve including the non‐linear region and the 1:1 line. These parameters also provide insight into potential relationships between accommodation and ocular anomalies, such as amblyopia and myopia …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When applying these three methods, the target is not adjusted for lens‐induced magnification and minification or changes in angular size due to changes in the fixation distance. Several authors have used a Badal stimulator, which maintains a constant target size and minimises proximal accommodation; however, few studies have determined the ASRC using the minus lens method with a near target despite poor stimulation of the accommodative response by negative lenses at distance. Usually, discrete 1.00 D stimulus intervals are used to save time and therefore, the fitted curve does not reflect the entire accommodative status because there are gaps between the measured stimuli.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of three monocular methods for measuring accommodative stimulus–response curves

Chen

Jin

Zheng

et al. 2017

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe aim was to evaluate the repeatability of dynamic measurement of the accommodative stimulus–response curve (ASRC) at three different dioptric speeds using a modified instrument and its agreement with two other methods.MethodsTwenty‐nine adults (23.5 ± 2.0 years) were enrolled in the study. ASRC was measured monocularly using three methods: dynamic and static measurement using a motorised Badal system mounted on an open‐field auto‐refractor (WAM‐5500, Grand Seiko Co., Ltd, Japan) and the minus lens technique. Dynamic measurements were conducted at three dioptric stimulus speeds to simulate continuous stimuli for ASRC (0.25, 0.40 and 0.55 D/s), with three repetitions for each speed. All three types of ASRCs were fitted with third‐degree polynomial equations. The slope and objective accommodative amplitude of the ASRC were analysed.ResultsThe repeatability of objective accommodative amplitude worsened as the speed of the stimuli increased. The repeatability of the slope was best at a speed of 0.40 D/s and worst at 0.55 D/s. The measurement method significantly influenced the objective accommodative amplitude values and slope (both, p < 0.001). The minus lens technique yielded the highest amplitude of accommodation (6.21 ± 0.84 D) and steepest slope (1.11 ± 0.14), followed by the static Badal method (5.60 ± 0.83 D and 0.89 ± 0.09 D). The objective accommodative amplitude decreased with increasing speed during dynamic measurements. There was no difference between the slopes at 0.25 D and 0.40 D/s (p > 0.05) and the slope was lowest at 0.55 D/s.Conclusion The accommodative stimulus–response curve values are method‐dependent and the significant differences between three methods used to determine the ASRC based on slope and accommodative amplitude indicate that these methods are non‐interchangeable. Using dynamic measurements, accommodative behaviour varies with the speed of dioptric‐change of the stimulus. A speed of 0.40 D/s appears to be the best compromise in terms of time, results and repeatability for dynamic ASRC measurement.

show abstract

Effectiveness study of atropine for progressive myopia in Europeans

Polling

Kok

Tideman

et al. 2016

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeRandomized controlled trials have shown the efficacy of atropine for progressive myopia, and this treatment has become the preferred pattern for this condition in Taiwan. This study explores the effectiveness of atropine 0.5% treatment for progressive high myopia and adherence to therapy in a non-Asian country.MethodsAn effectiveness study was performed in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Overall 77 children (mean age 10.3 years±2.3), of European (n=53), Asian (n=18), and African (n=6) descent with progressive myopia were prescribed atropine 0.5% eye drops daily. Both parents and children filled in a questionnaire regarding adverse events and adherence to therapy. A standardized eye examination including cycloplegic refraction and axial length was performed at baseline and 1, 4, and 12 months after initiation of therapy.ResultsMean spherical equivalent at baseline was −6.6D (±3.3). The majority (60/77, 78%) of children adhered to atropine treatment for 12 months; 11 of the 17 children who discontinued therapy did so within 1 month after the start of therapy. The most prominent reported adverse events were photophobia (72%), followed by reading problems (38%), and headaches (22%). The progression rate of spherical equivalent before treatment (−1.0D/year±0.7) diminished substantially during treatment (−0.1D/year±0.7) compared to those who ceased therapy (−0.5D/year±0.6; P=0.03).ConclusionsDespite the relatively high occurrence of adverse events, our study shows that atropine can be an effective and sustainable treatment for progressive high myopia in Europeans.

show abstract

Accommodative Responses Under Different Stimulus Conditions

Abstract: The results suggest that the accommodative response in the steady state may be affected by the method used for inducing AS and the sequence of AS presented. The AEA is suggested to be used in the evaluation of the accuracy of the ASRC in future studies.

Cited by 7 publications

References 27 publications

Accommodation response to Chinese and Latin characters in Chinese‐illiterate young adults

Accommodation response to Chinese and Latin characters in Chinese‐illiterate young adults

Comparison of three monocular methods for measuring accommodative stimulus–response curves

Effectiveness study of atropine for progressive myopia in Europeans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About