Cargando…

Is Ocular Accommodation Influenced by Dynamic Ambient Illumination and Pupil Size?

Purpose: We investigated ocular accommodative responses and pupil diameters under different light intensities in order to explore whether changes in light intensity aid effective accommodation function training. Methods:A total of 29 emmetropic and myopic subjects (age range: 12–18 years) viewed a t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yu, Hanyang, Li, Wentao, Chen, Ziping, Chen, Mengzhen, Zeng, Junwen, Lin, Xijiang, Zhao, Feng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9518590/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36078207
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710490
Descripción
Sumario:Purpose: We investigated ocular accommodative responses and pupil diameters under different light intensities in order to explore whether changes in light intensity aid effective accommodation function training. Methods:A total of 29 emmetropic and myopic subjects (age range: 12–18 years) viewed a target in dynamic ambient light (luminance: 5, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000 and 3000 lux) and static ambient light (luminance: 1000 lux) at a 40 cm distance with refractive correction. Accommodation and pupil diameter were recorded using an open-field infrared autorefractor and an ultrasound biological microscope, respectively. Results: The changes in the amplitude of accommodative response and pupil diameter under dynamic lighting were 1.01 ± 0.53 D and 2.80 ± 0.75 mm, respectively, whereas in static lighting, those values were 0.43 ± 0.24 D and 0.77 ± 0.27 mm, respectively. The amplitude of accommodation and pupil diameter change in dynamic lighting (t = 6.097, p < 0.001) was significantly larger than that under static lighting (t = 16.115, p < 0.001).The effects of light level on both accommodation and pupil diameter were significant (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Accommodation was positively correlated with light intensity. The difference was about 1.0 D in the range of 0–3000 lux, which may lay the foundation for accommodative training through light intervention.