PubMed · 13456212
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
G A BELIAEV. [Prolonged accommodation spasm].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13456212/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Children in a tribe of sea-gypsies from South-East Asia have been found to have superior underwater vision compared to European children. In this study, we show that the improved underwater vision of these Moken children is not due to better contrast sensitivity in general. We also show that European children can achieve the same underwater acuity as the Moken children. After 1 month of underwater training (11 sessions) followed by 4 months with no underwater activities, European children showed improved underwater vision and distinct bursts of pupil constriction. When tested 8 months after the last training session in an outdoor pool in bright sunlight-comparable to light environments in South-East Asia-the children had attained the same underwater acuity as the sea-gypsy children. The achieved performance can be explained by the combined effect of pupil constriction and strong accommodation.
PURPOSE: Recent experiments in monkeys suggest that deprivation, imposed only in the periphery of the visual field, can induce foveal myopia. This raises the hypothesis that peripheral refractive errors imposed by the spectacle lens correction could influence foveal refractive development also in humans. We have tested this hypothesis in chicks. METHODS: Chicks wore either full field spectacle lenses (+6.9 D/-7 D), or lenses with central holes of 4, 6, or 8mm diameter, for 4 days (n=6 for each group). Refractions were measured in the central visual field, and at -45 degrees (temporal) and +45 degrees (nasal), and axial lengths were measured by A-scan ultrasonography. RESULTS: As previously described, full field lenses were largely compensated within 4 days (refraction changes with positive lenses: +4.69+/-1.73 D, negative lenses: -5.98+/-1.78 D, both p<0.001, Dunnett's test, to untreated controls). With holes in the center of the lenses, the central refraction remained emmetropic and there was not even a trend of a shift in refraction (all groups: p>0.5, Dunnetts test). At +/-45 degrees , the lenses were partially compensated despite the 4/6/8mm central holes; positive lenses: +2.63 / +1.44 / +0.43 D, negative lenses: -2.57 / -1.06 / +0.06 D. CONCLUSIONS: There is extensive local compensation of imposed refractive errors in chickens. For the tested hole sizes, peripherally imposed defocus did not influence central refractive development. To alter central refractive development, the unobstructed part in the central visual field may have to be quite small (hole sizes smaller than 4mm, with the lenses at a vertex distance of 2-3mm).
The accommodation response is sensitive to the chromatic properties of the stimulus, a sensitivity presumed to be related to making use of the longitudinal chromatic aberration of the eye to decode the sign of the defocus. Thus, the relative sensitivity to the long- (L) and middle-wavelength (M) cones may influence accommodation and may also be related to an individual's refractive error. Accommodation was measured continuously while subjects viewed a sine wave grating (2.2c/d) that had different cone contrast ratios. Seven conditions tested loci that form a circle with equal vector length (0.27) at 0, 22.5, 45, 67.5, 90, 120, 145 deg. An eighth condition produced an empty field stimulus (CIE (x,y) co-ordinates (0.4554, 0.3835)). Each of the gratings moved at 0.2 Hz sinusoidally between 1.00 D and 3.00 D for 40s, while the effects of longitudinal chromatic aberration were neutralized with an achromatizing lens. Both the mean level of accommodation and the gain of the accommodative response, to sinusoidal movements of the stimulus, depended on the relative L and M cone sensitivity: Individuals more sensitive to L-cone stimulation showed a higher level of accommodation (p=0.01; F=12.05; ANOVA) and dynamic gain was higher for gratings with relatively more L-cone contrast. Refractive error showed a similar correlation: More myopic individuals showed a higher mean level of accommodation (p<0.01; F=11.42; ANOVA) and showed higher gain for gratings with relatively more L-cone than M-cone contrast (p=0.01; F=10.83 ANOVA). If luminance contrast is maximized by accommodation, long wavelengths will be imaged behind the photoreceptors. Individuals in whom luminance is dominated by L-cones may maximize luminance contrast both by accommodating more, as shown here, and by increased ocular elongation, resulting in myopia, possibly explaining the correlations reported here among relative L/M-cone sensitivity, refractive error and accommodation.