The short‐term accommodation response to aniso‐accommodative stimuli in isometropia

Vincent, Stephen J.; Collins, Michael J.; Read, Scott A.; Ghosh, Atanu; Chen, Christine; Lam, Anthony; Sahota, Sonya; Vo, Rebecca

doi:10.1111/opo.12225

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There were several limitations to our study. First, for the same subject, we performed different methods on different eyes because of the physical constraints of our Badal system mounted on the Grand Seiko, which might have caused bias in our study; however, Vincent and colleagues reported that young subjects with minimal anisometropia and astigmatism, which describes the sample in this study, exhibited very small differences in the accommodation response between fellow eyes for a range of viewing conditions assessed with an open‐field autorefractor. Second, the non‐randomisation of the order of the three methods may have led to a fatigue effect in the results and consequently the lower AA measured with the minus lens technique compared to Anderson and colleagues .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Chen

Jin

Zheng

et al. 2017

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Chen

Jin

Zheng

et al. 2017

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is limited evidence regarding the impact of uncorrected anisometropia on children's performances in school. Although some studies have investigated the visual deficits associated with amblyopic anisometropia, few have explored functional deficits associated with non‐amblyopic anisometropia, which can potentially disrupt binocular co‐ordination due to interocular differences in accommodative demand, or retinal image size . This may result in visual symptoms such as headaches and eyestrain, which can contribute to a reduction in functional performance .…”

Section: Vision Refractive Error and Academic Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Do reduced visual acuity and refractive error affect classroom performance?

Hopkins

Narayanasamy

Vincent

et al. 2020

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of visual acuity and refractive errors in the academic performance of children is controversial due to the variable quality of the research in this area and the mixed findings reported. This review aims to provide clarity by reviewing and critiquing relevant peerreviewed publications and also summarises what is known regarding the visual demands of modern classroom environments. The outcomes of this review suggest that while a number of studies have investigated the role of vision in relation to children's academic performances, the veracity of the evidence obtained from the majority of these studies is undermined by methodological limitations. Comparisons between studies are constrained by differences in experimental designs, instrumentation and sample characteristics. Despite these limitations, the weight of evidence suggests there is an association between academic performance and both visual acuity and refractive error in children. However, well-designed experimental studies are necessary to further understand the relationship between these parameters.

show abstract

“…Ocular dominance plays an important role in reading [ 10 ]. Vincent et al [ 11 ] found that the dominant eye is showing significantly greater accommodative response during binocular viewing. Based on the assumption that blur is easier to be suppressed in nondominant eye, dominant eye is usually corrected for distant vision and nondominant eye is usually corrected for near vision in monovision design.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dominant Eye and Visual Evoked Potential of Patients with Myopic Anisometropia

Wang

Liu

et al. 2016

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A prospective nonrandomized controlled study was conducted to explore the association between ocular dominance and degree of myopia in patients with anisometropia and to investigate the character of visual evoked potential (VEP) in high anisometropias. 1771 young myopia cases including 790 anisometropias were recruited. We found no significant relation between ocular dominance and spherical equivalent (SE) refraction in all subjects. On average for subjects with anisometropia 1.0–1.75 D, there was no significant difference in SE power between dominant and nondominant eyes, while, in SE anisometropia ≥1.75 D group, the degree of myopia was significantly higher in nondominant eyes than in dominant eyes. The trend was more significant in SE anisometropia ≥2.5 D group. There was no significant difference in higher-order aberrations between dominant eye and nondominant eye either in the whole study candidates or in any anisometropia groups. In anisometropias >2.0 D, the N75 latency of nondominant eye was longer than that of dominant eye. Our results suggested that, with the increase of anisometropia, nondominant eye had a tendency of higher refraction and N75 wave latency of nondominant eye was longer than that of dominant eye in high anisometropias.

show abstract

The short‐term accommodation response to aniso‐accommodative stimuli in isometropia

Cited by 16 publications

References 38 publications

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

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

Do reduced visual acuity and refractive error affect classroom performance?

Dominant Eye and Visual Evoked Potential of Patients with Myopic Anisometropia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About