TY - JOUR
T1 - Accommodation lags are higher in myopia than in emmetropia
T2 - Measurement methods and metrics matter
AU - Kaphle, Dinesh
AU - Varnas, Saulius R
AU - Schmid, Katrina L
AU - Suheimat, Marwan
AU - Leube, Alexander
AU - Atchison, David A
N1 - Funding Information:
Dinesh Kaphle was supported by a Postgraduate Research Award from Queensland University of Technology. The study was supported by a grant from Carl Zeiss Vision. We thank Dr Steve Spratt for calculating objective refractions from the Zernike coefficient output by the Complete Ophthalmic Analysis System (COAS) aberrometer using different refraction metrics, and we thank Dr Cox and Professor Niall Strang in interpreting calculations of refractions presented in Hazel et al.18 Saulius Varnas is an employee of Carl Zeiss Vision Open access publishing facilitated by Queensland University of Technology, as part of the Wiley ‐ Queensland University of Technology agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians. Open access publishing facilitated by Queensland University of Technology, as part of the Wiley ‐ Queensland University of Technology agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.
Funding Information:
Dinesh Kaphle was supported by a Postgraduate Research Award from Queensland University of Technology. The study was supported by a grant from Carl Zeiss Vision. We thank Dr Steve Spratt for calculating objective refractions from the Zernike coefficient output by the Complete Ophthalmic Analysis System (COAS) aberrometer using different refraction metrics, and we thank Dr Cox and Professor Niall Strang in interpreting calculations of refractions presented in Hazel et al.18 Saulius Varnas is an employee of Carl Zeiss Vision Open access publishing facilitated by Queensland University of Technology, as part of the Wiley - Queensland University of Technology agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of College of Optometrists.
PY - 2022/9
Y1 - 2022/9
N2 - PURPOSE: To determine whether accommodative errors in emmetropes and myopes are systematically different, and the effect of using different instruments and metrics.METHODS: Seventy-six adults aged 18-27 years comprising 24 emmetropes (spherical equivalent refraction of the dominant eye +0.04 ± 0.03 D) and 52 myopes (-2.73 ± 0.22 D) were included. Accommodation responses were measured with a Grand Seiko WAM-5500 and a Hartmann-Shack Complete Ophthalmic Analysis System aberrometer, using pupil plane (Zernike and Seidel refraction) and retinal image plane (neural sharpness-NS; and visual Strehl ratio for modulation transfer function-VSMTF) metrics at 40, 33 and 25 cm. Accommodation stimuli were presented to the corrected dominant eye, and responses, referenced to the corneal plane, were determined in the fellow eye. Linear mixed-effects models were used to determine influence of the refractive group, the measurement method, accommodation stimulus, age, race, parental myopia, gender and binocular measures of heterophoria, accommodative convergence/accommodation and convergence accommodation/convergence ratios.RESULTS: Lags of accommodation were affected significantly by the measurement method (p < 0.001), the refractive group (p = 0.003), near heterophoria (p = 0.002) and accommodative stimulus (p < 0.05), with significant interactions between some of these variables. Overall, emmetropes had smaller lags of accommodation than myopes with respective means ± standard errors of 0.31 ± 0.08 D and 0.61 ± 0.06 D (p = 0.003). Lags were largest for the Grand Seiko and Zernike defocus, intermediate for NS and VSMTF, and least for Seidel defocus.CONCLUSIONS: The mean lag of accommodation in emmetropes is approximately equal to the previously reported depth of focus. Myopes had larger (double) lags than emmetropes. Differences between methods and instruments could be as great as 0.50 D, and this must be considered when comparing studies and outcomes. Accommodative lag increased with the accommodation stimulus, but only for methods using a fixed small pupil diameter.
AB - PURPOSE: To determine whether accommodative errors in emmetropes and myopes are systematically different, and the effect of using different instruments and metrics.METHODS: Seventy-six adults aged 18-27 years comprising 24 emmetropes (spherical equivalent refraction of the dominant eye +0.04 ± 0.03 D) and 52 myopes (-2.73 ± 0.22 D) were included. Accommodation responses were measured with a Grand Seiko WAM-5500 and a Hartmann-Shack Complete Ophthalmic Analysis System aberrometer, using pupil plane (Zernike and Seidel refraction) and retinal image plane (neural sharpness-NS; and visual Strehl ratio for modulation transfer function-VSMTF) metrics at 40, 33 and 25 cm. Accommodation stimuli were presented to the corrected dominant eye, and responses, referenced to the corneal plane, were determined in the fellow eye. Linear mixed-effects models were used to determine influence of the refractive group, the measurement method, accommodation stimulus, age, race, parental myopia, gender and binocular measures of heterophoria, accommodative convergence/accommodation and convergence accommodation/convergence ratios.RESULTS: Lags of accommodation were affected significantly by the measurement method (p < 0.001), the refractive group (p = 0.003), near heterophoria (p = 0.002) and accommodative stimulus (p < 0.05), with significant interactions between some of these variables. Overall, emmetropes had smaller lags of accommodation than myopes with respective means ± standard errors of 0.31 ± 0.08 D and 0.61 ± 0.06 D (p = 0.003). Lags were largest for the Grand Seiko and Zernike defocus, intermediate for NS and VSMTF, and least for Seidel defocus.CONCLUSIONS: The mean lag of accommodation in emmetropes is approximately equal to the previously reported depth of focus. Myopes had larger (double) lags than emmetropes. Differences between methods and instruments could be as great as 0.50 D, and this must be considered when comparing studies and outcomes. Accommodative lag increased with the accommodation stimulus, but only for methods using a fixed small pupil diameter.
KW - aberrometer
KW - accommodation errors
KW - autorefractor
KW - emmetropia
KW - metrics
KW - myopia
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85133132953&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/opo.13021
DO - 10.1111/opo.13021
M3 - Article
C2 - 35775299
SN - 0275-5408
VL - 42
SP - 1103
EP - 1114
JO - Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics
JF - Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics
IS - 5
ER -