Cargando…
Comparison of three monocular methods for measuring accommodative stimulus–response curves
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 s...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5347892/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27813170 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12469 |
_version_ | 1782514134105980928 |
---|---|
author | Chen, Yunyun Jin, Wanqing Zheng, Zhili Zhang, Chuanchuan Lin, Huiling Drobe, Björn Bao, Jinhua Chen, Hao |
author_facet | Chen, Yunyun Jin, Wanqing Zheng, Zhili Zhang, Chuanchuan Lin, Huiling Drobe, Björn Bao, Jinhua Chen, Hao |
author_sort | Chen, Yunyun |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5347892 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53478922017-03-23 Comparison of three monocular methods for measuring accommodative stimulus–response curves Chen, Yunyun Jin, Wanqing Zheng, Zhili Zhang, Chuanchuan Lin, Huiling Drobe, Björn Bao, Jinhua Chen, Hao Clin Exp Optom Research Papers 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. Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 2016-11-03 2017-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5347892/ /pubmed/27813170 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12469 Text en © 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Research Papers Chen, Yunyun Jin, Wanqing Zheng, Zhili Zhang, Chuanchuan Lin, Huiling Drobe, Björn Bao, Jinhua Chen, Hao Comparison of three monocular methods for measuring accommodative stimulus–response curves |
title | Comparison of three monocular methods for measuring accommodative stimulus–response curves |
title_full | Comparison of three monocular methods for measuring accommodative stimulus–response curves |
title_fullStr | Comparison of three monocular methods for measuring accommodative stimulus–response curves |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of three monocular methods for measuring accommodative stimulus–response curves |
title_short | Comparison of three monocular methods for measuring accommodative stimulus–response curves |
title_sort | comparison of three monocular methods for measuring accommodative stimulus–response curves |
topic | Research Papers |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5347892/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27813170 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12469 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chenyunyun comparisonofthreemonocularmethodsformeasuringaccommodativestimulusresponsecurves AT jinwanqing comparisonofthreemonocularmethodsformeasuringaccommodativestimulusresponsecurves AT zhengzhili comparisonofthreemonocularmethodsformeasuringaccommodativestimulusresponsecurves AT zhangchuanchuan comparisonofthreemonocularmethodsformeasuringaccommodativestimulusresponsecurves AT linhuiling comparisonofthreemonocularmethodsformeasuringaccommodativestimulusresponsecurves AT drobebjorn comparisonofthreemonocularmethodsformeasuringaccommodativestimulusresponsecurves AT baojinhua comparisonofthreemonocularmethodsformeasuringaccommodativestimulusresponsecurves AT chenhao comparisonofthreemonocularmethodsformeasuringaccommodativestimulusresponsecurves |