PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10615451

Accommodative error, adaptation and myopia.

Abstract

Accommodative adaptation, resulting from the sustained output of slow blur-driven accommodation during the course of a sustained near-vision task, has generally been assessed under open-loop conditions. This study examined whether adaptation influences closed-loop accommodation during the course of a sustained near-vision task. Accommodative adaptation was assessed in 18 fully-corrected subjects by comparing pre- and post-task values of dark accommodation recorded objectively with an infra-red optometer. Subjects performed a continuous 10 min binocular near-vision task at a viewing distance of 33 cm, with the within-task accommodative response being assessed at 1 min intervals during this period. Subjects were categorized into adaptors (N = 11) and non-adaptors (N = 7) on the basis of whether their initial 10 sec post-task adaptation exceeded +0.30D. The adapting group exhibited a significant decline in the lag of accommodation during the first 3 min of the near-task, whereas no significant change in the within-task response over time was observed in the non-adapting group. These results indicate that accommodative adaptation increases the accuracy of the within-task, closed-loop accommodative response. Furthermore, we speculate that a deficit in accommodative adaptation, being accompanied by increased retinal defocus during near fixation, may contribute to the development of nearwork-induced myopia.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Rosenfield, B Gilmartin. 1999. Accommodative error, adaptation and myopia.. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1475-1313.1999.00419.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Closed-loop and open-loop accommodative vergence eye movements.

We examined accommodative vergence eye movements under conditions in which feedback about retinal-image slip was and was not present (i.e. closed-loop and open-loop conditions). We found that (a) in both conditions the two eyes started to move at the same time; (b) in the open-loop condition, vergence continued in both eyes; and (c) in the closed-loop condition, vergence continued in the occluded eye only, and the magnitude and velocity exceeded that of the occluded eye in the open-loop condition by a factor of two.

Accommodation, Ocular↗

Dynamics of the accommodation response to abrupt changes in target vergence as a function of age.

The dynamic accommodation responses to small, abrupt changes in an accommodation stimulus were studied in two experiments. In the first, responses of 19 subjects with ages distributed between 18 and 49 years were measured for step stimuli of +/- 1.05 D. In the second, responses to small step stimuli (+/- 0.75, +/- 1.75 D) were recorded for a group of six 'young' (mean age 22, range 16-26 years) and six 'old' (mean age 42, range 36-48 years) subjects. In both experiments, the low target vergences always lay within the accommodation range of all subjects. Whether the data were analysed in terms of simple reaction and response times, or in terms of the frequency response, no marked systematic changes with age were found in the dynamics of the response in either of the experiments. It is concluded that, for small stimuli within the amplitude of accommodation, the response dynamics over the adult age range studied remain remarkably constant, even though the amplitude progressively reduces with age as complete presbyopia is approached.

Accommodation, Ocular↗

Comparison of clinical characteristics of familial and sporadic acquired accommodative esotropia.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical characteristics of patients with familial and nonfamilial acquired accommodative esotropia. METHODS: We recruited 48 patients from 33 families with acquired accommodative esotropia (an inward deviation of the eyes of 10 PD or more, a hypermetropia greater than or equal to +1.50 D, and an onset of esotropia at, or later than, 1 year of age). Our control group consisted of 20 patients with no known family history. Spherical error of refraction, stereoacuity, and need for strabismus surgery were determined and the 2 groups were compared. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between the spherical equivalent error of refraction in familial cases (mean = +4.50 OD, +4.63 OS; range = +1.50 to +10.30 OD, +2.00 to +9.38 OS) versus those with nonfamilial disease (mean = +4.93 OD, +5.02 OS; range = +2.50 to +11.00 OD, +2.50 to +10.90 OS) (P =.47 OD; P =.47 OS). There also was no difference between the percentage of patients with familial disease who had some degree of stereoacuity (58%) and those without a family history (59%) (P > .99). Patients with familial acquired accommodative esotropia did not require more surgical interventions (26%) than those with nonfamilial acquired accommodative esotropia (30%) (P = .79). CONCLUSIONS: The general clinical characteristics of familial and nonfamilial acquired accommodative esotropia are very similar.

Accommodation, Ocular↗