IOVS Is this journal stale?
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2007;48:4375-4382.)
© 2007 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
DOI:  10.1167/iovs.07-0269
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Radhakrishnan, H.
Right arrow Articles by Charman, W. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Radhakrishnan, H.
Right arrow Articles by Charman, W. N.

Dynamics of Accommodative Facility in Myopes

Hema Radhakrishnan,1,2 Peter M. Allen,2,3 and W. Neil Charman1

1From the Faculty of Life Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; the 3Myopia and Visual Function Research Group, Department of Optometry and Ophthalmic Dispensing, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom; and the 2Vision CRC, Sydney, Australia.

PURPOSE. To evaluate the dynamic changes in refraction during the accommodative facility test in myopes and emmetropes.

METHODS. Ten myopes and 10 emmetropes participated in the study. All were young adults, and refractive error in the myopes was corrected with soft contact lenses. Monocular accommodative facility measurements were taken for a 40-cm and a 6-m working distance with +2.00/–2.00-D and Plano/–2.00-D flippers, respectively. Subjective facility was recorded with automated flippers and objective measurements of dynamic accommodation response were simultaneously taken with a photorefractor.

RESULTS. Subjective and objective facility measurements showed a significantly lower facility rate in myopes when compared with emmetropes at distance (P < 0.05) but not at near (P > 0.05). The response amplitude of accommodation during facility tasks was found to be similar in the two refractive groups. However, the velocity of accommodation was found to be lower in myopes than in emmetropes for distance facility (P < 0.05) but not for near facility (P > 0.05). Velocity of disaccommodation was lower in myopes than in emmetropes at both distance and near (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS. During distance accommodative facility testing, myopes exhibited a lower velocity of accommodation and disaccommodation, which led to a lower distance accommodative facility rate. For near facility measurements, however, although velocity of disaccommodation was lower in myopes, velocity of accommodation was found to be similar in the two refractive groups. A variety of factors that contribute to these differences are discussed.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology