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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Yunyun, Jin, Wanqing, Zheng, Zhili, Zhang, Chuanchuan, Lin, Huiling, Drobe, Björn, Bao, Jinhua, Chen, Hao
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