Cargando…

Is 25 Hz enough to accurately measure a dynamic change in the ocular accommodation?

BACKGROUND: Accommodation is often recorded at a low sampling rate using devices such as autorefractors that are designed to measure the static refractive error. It is therefore important to determine if that resolution is sufficient to accurately measure the dynamic properties of accommodation. The...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Labhishetty, Vivek, Bobier, William R., Lakshminarayanan, Vasudevan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6318547/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29580938
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2018.02.001
_version_ 1783384899745480704
author Labhishetty, Vivek
Bobier, William R.
Lakshminarayanan, Vasudevan
author_facet Labhishetty, Vivek
Bobier, William R.
Lakshminarayanan, Vasudevan
author_sort Labhishetty, Vivek
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Accommodation is often recorded at a low sampling rate using devices such as autorefractors that are designed to measure the static refractive error. It is therefore important to determine if that resolution is sufficient to accurately measure the dynamic properties of accommodation. The current study provides both theoretical and empirical evidence on the ideal sampling rate necessary to measure a dynamic response. METHODS: Accommodative and disaccommodative step stimuli ranging from 1–3D (1D steps) were presented using a Badal optical system. Responses from 12 children (8–13 years) and 6 adults (20–35 years) were recorded using a dynamic photorefractor (DPR). Fast Fourier transformation was applied to the unsmoothed dynamic responses including position, velocity and acceleration. Also, velocity and acceleration main sequence (MS) characteristics were compared between three photorefractor conditions on 3 subjects. RESULTS: The Nyquist sampling limit necessary to accurately estimate position, velocity and acceleration was at least 5, 10 and 70 Hz, respectively. Peak velocity and acceleration were significantly underestimated at a lower rate (p < 0.5). However, the slope of MS remained invariant with sampling rate (p > 0.5). CONCLUSION: Contrary to the previous findings, a dynamic accommodative response exhibited frequencies larger than 10 Hz. Stimulus direction and amplitude had no influence on the frequencies present in the dynamic response. Peak velocity and acceleration can be significantly underestimated when sampled at a lower rate. Taken as a whole, low sampling rate instruments can accurately estimate static accommodation, however, caution needs to be exercised when using them for dynamic accommodation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6318547
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63185472019-01-09 Is 25 Hz enough to accurately measure a dynamic change in the ocular accommodation? Labhishetty, Vivek Bobier, William R. Lakshminarayanan, Vasudevan J Optom Original article BACKGROUND: Accommodation is often recorded at a low sampling rate using devices such as autorefractors that are designed to measure the static refractive error. It is therefore important to determine if that resolution is sufficient to accurately measure the dynamic properties of accommodation. The current study provides both theoretical and empirical evidence on the ideal sampling rate necessary to measure a dynamic response. METHODS: Accommodative and disaccommodative step stimuli ranging from 1–3D (1D steps) were presented using a Badal optical system. Responses from 12 children (8–13 years) and 6 adults (20–35 years) were recorded using a dynamic photorefractor (DPR). Fast Fourier transformation was applied to the unsmoothed dynamic responses including position, velocity and acceleration. Also, velocity and acceleration main sequence (MS) characteristics were compared between three photorefractor conditions on 3 subjects. RESULTS: The Nyquist sampling limit necessary to accurately estimate position, velocity and acceleration was at least 5, 10 and 70 Hz, respectively. Peak velocity and acceleration were significantly underestimated at a lower rate (p < 0.5). However, the slope of MS remained invariant with sampling rate (p > 0.5). CONCLUSION: Contrary to the previous findings, a dynamic accommodative response exhibited frequencies larger than 10 Hz. Stimulus direction and amplitude had no influence on the frequencies present in the dynamic response. Peak velocity and acceleration can be significantly underestimated when sampled at a lower rate. Taken as a whole, low sampling rate instruments can accurately estimate static accommodation, however, caution needs to be exercised when using them for dynamic accommodation. Elsevier 2019 2018-03-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6318547/ /pubmed/29580938 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2018.02.001 Text en © 2018 Spanish General Council of Optometry. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original article
Labhishetty, Vivek
Bobier, William R.
Lakshminarayanan, Vasudevan
Is 25 Hz enough to accurately measure a dynamic change in the ocular accommodation?
title Is 25 Hz enough to accurately measure a dynamic change in the ocular accommodation?
title_full Is 25 Hz enough to accurately measure a dynamic change in the ocular accommodation?
title_fullStr Is 25 Hz enough to accurately measure a dynamic change in the ocular accommodation?
title_full_unstemmed Is 25 Hz enough to accurately measure a dynamic change in the ocular accommodation?
title_short Is 25 Hz enough to accurately measure a dynamic change in the ocular accommodation?
title_sort is 25 hz enough to accurately measure a dynamic change in the ocular accommodation?
topic Original article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6318547/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29580938
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2018.02.001
work_keys_str_mv AT labhishettyvivek is25hzenoughtoaccuratelymeasureadynamicchangeintheocularaccommodation
AT bobierwilliamr is25hzenoughtoaccuratelymeasureadynamicchangeintheocularaccommodation
AT lakshminarayananvasudevan is25hzenoughtoaccuratelymeasureadynamicchangeintheocularaccommodation