10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          The 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.

          Methods

          Twenty‐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.

          Results

          The 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measurement error.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Myopic children show insufficient accommodative response to blur.

            The study was performed to establish the relationship between the slope of the accommodative response function and refractive error in children.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Dynamics of accommodation responses of the human eye.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                chenhao@mail.eye.ac.cn
                Journal
                Clin Exp Optom
                Clin Exp Optom
                10.1111/(ISSN)1444-0938
                CXO
                Clinical & Experimental Optometry
                Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd (Melbourne )
                0816-4622
                1444-0938
                03 November 2016
                March 2017
                : 100
                : 2 ( doiID: 10.1111/cxo.2017.100.issue-2 )
                : 155-161
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] School of Ophthalmology and OptometryWenzhou Medical University Wenzhou ZhejiangChina
                [ 2 ] WEIRCWMU‐Essilor International Research Centre Wenzhou ZhejiangChina
                [ 3 ] R&D Optics AsiaEssilor International Wenzhou ZhejiangChina
                Author notes
                Article
                CXO12469
                10.1111/cxo.12469
                5347892
                27813170
                26b03b0c-144b-4b0c-8457-c3d2d8378ab2
                © 2016 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Optometry published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Optometry Australia

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 26 July 2016
                : 07 January 2016
                : 28 July 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 1, Pages: 7, Words: 5913
                Funding
                Funded by: International S&T Cooperation Program of China
                Award ID: 2014DFA30940
                Funded by: Essilor International S.A
                Funded by: National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People's Republic of China
                Award ID: 201302015
                Categories
                Research Paper
                Research Papers
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                cxo12469
                cxo12469-hdr-0001
                March 2017
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.0.8 mode:remove_FC converted:13.03.2017

                accommodation,accommodative stimulus–response curve,objective accommodative amplitude,repeatability,slope

                Comments

                Comment on this article