Cargando…

Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile

Objective and subjective methods of assessing time taken for accommodative change (ToAC) include accommodative dynamics (AD) and accommodative facility (AF). This study investigates the validity of novel metrics derived from the AD-profile and explores their relationship with AF. AD were assessed us...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Szostek, Nicola, Buckhurst, Hetal, Purslow, Christine, Drew, Thomas, Collinson, Avril, Buckhurst, Phillip
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6836212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31735897
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vision2030034
_version_ 1783466855747289088
author Szostek, Nicola
Buckhurst, Hetal
Purslow, Christine
Drew, Thomas
Collinson, Avril
Buckhurst, Phillip
author_facet Szostek, Nicola
Buckhurst, Hetal
Purslow, Christine
Drew, Thomas
Collinson, Avril
Buckhurst, Phillip
author_sort Szostek, Nicola
collection PubMed
description Objective and subjective methods of assessing time taken for accommodative change (ToAC) include accommodative dynamics (AD) and accommodative facility (AF). This study investigates the validity of novel metrics derived from the AD-profile and explores their relationship with AF. AD were assessed using a modified open-field autorefractor in 43 healthy adults. Non-linear regression curves were fitted to the data to derive: latency-of-accommodation (nLoA) and -disaccomodation (nLoD), Time-for-accommodation (ToA) and -disaccommodation (ToD), and objective-ToAC (oToAC). Latencies were also calculated through visual inspection of the AD data as in previous studies (pLoA and pLoD). AF was used to assess subjective-ToAC. Statistical analysis explored the relationships between the AD-metrics and AF. Subjects were assessed on three visits to examine intra- and inter-observer repeatability. nLoA and nLoD were greater than pLoA (p = 0.001) and pLoD (p = 0.004) respectively. nLoA and nLoD also demonstrated greater intra- and inter-observer repeatability than pLoA and pLoD. AF demonstrated a moderate, inverse correlation with ToA (p = 0.02), ToD (p = 0.007), and oToAC (p = 0.007). ToD was the single best accommodative predictor of AF (p = 0.011). The novel method for deriving latency was more repeatable, but not interchangeable with the techniques used in previous studies. ToD was the most repeatable metric with the greatest association with AF.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6836212
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68362122019-11-14 Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile Szostek, Nicola Buckhurst, Hetal Purslow, Christine Drew, Thomas Collinson, Avril Buckhurst, Phillip Vision (Basel) Article Objective and subjective methods of assessing time taken for accommodative change (ToAC) include accommodative dynamics (AD) and accommodative facility (AF). This study investigates the validity of novel metrics derived from the AD-profile and explores their relationship with AF. AD were assessed using a modified open-field autorefractor in 43 healthy adults. Non-linear regression curves were fitted to the data to derive: latency-of-accommodation (nLoA) and -disaccomodation (nLoD), Time-for-accommodation (ToA) and -disaccommodation (ToD), and objective-ToAC (oToAC). Latencies were also calculated through visual inspection of the AD data as in previous studies (pLoA and pLoD). AF was used to assess subjective-ToAC. Statistical analysis explored the relationships between the AD-metrics and AF. Subjects were assessed on three visits to examine intra- and inter-observer repeatability. nLoA and nLoD were greater than pLoA (p = 0.001) and pLoD (p = 0.004) respectively. nLoA and nLoD also demonstrated greater intra- and inter-observer repeatability than pLoA and pLoD. AF demonstrated a moderate, inverse correlation with ToA (p = 0.02), ToD (p = 0.007), and oToAC (p = 0.007). ToD was the single best accommodative predictor of AF (p = 0.011). The novel method for deriving latency was more repeatable, but not interchangeable with the techniques used in previous studies. ToD was the most repeatable metric with the greatest association with AF. MDPI 2018-08-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6836212/ /pubmed/31735897 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vision2030034 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Szostek, Nicola
Buckhurst, Hetal
Purslow, Christine
Drew, Thomas
Collinson, Avril
Buckhurst, Phillip
Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile
title Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile
title_full Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile
title_fullStr Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile
title_full_unstemmed Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile
title_short Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile
title_sort validation of novel metrics from the accommodative dynamic profile
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6836212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31735897
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vision2030034
work_keys_str_mv AT szosteknicola validationofnovelmetricsfromtheaccommodativedynamicprofile
AT buckhursthetal validationofnovelmetricsfromtheaccommodativedynamicprofile
AT purslowchristine validationofnovelmetricsfromtheaccommodativedynamicprofile
AT drewthomas validationofnovelmetricsfromtheaccommodativedynamicprofile
AT collinsonavril validationofnovelmetricsfromtheaccommodativedynamicprofile
AT buckhurstphillip validationofnovelmetricsfromtheaccommodativedynamicprofile