Comparison of proximal and minus lens autorefraction techniques to measure monocular accommodative amplitude.

IF 1.6 4区医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Optometry and Vision Science Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-06 DOI:10.1097/OPX.0000000000002103

Sidney M Parks, Marjean T Kulp, Heather A Anderson

{"title":"Comparison of proximal and minus lens autorefraction techniques to measure monocular accommodative amplitude.","authors":"Sidney M Parks, Marjean T Kulp, Heather A Anderson","doi":"10.1097/OPX.0000000000002103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Significance: This study provides a faster method for objectively measuring accommodative amplitude with an open-field autorefractor in a research setting.Purpose: Objective measures of accommodative amplitude with an autorefractor take time because of the numerous stimulus demands tested. This study compares protocols using different amounts and types of demands to shorten the process.Methods: One hundred participants were recruited for four age bins (5 to 9, 10 to 14, 15 to 19, and 20 to 24 years) and monocular amplitude measured with an autorefractor using three protocols: proximal, proximal-lens (letter), and proximal-lens (picture). For proximal, measurements were taken as participants viewed a 0.9 mm \"E\" placed at 13 demands (40 to 3.3 cm = 2.5 to 30 D). The other protocols used a target (either the \"E\" or a detailed picture) placed at 33 and 12.5 cm followed by 12.5 cm with a series of lenses (-2, -4, and -5.5 D). Adjustments were made for lens effectivity for the three lens conditions, which were thus 9.6, 11.1, and 12.0 D for individuals without additional spectacle lenses. Accommodative amplitude was defined as the greatest response measured with each technique. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare group mean amplitudes across protocols and differences between letter protocols by age bin.Results: Amplitudes were significantly different between protocols (p < 0.001), with proximal having higher amplitudes (mean ± standard deviation, 8.04 ± 1.70 D) compared with both proximal-lens protocols (letter, 7.48 ± 1.42 D; picture, 7.43 ± 1.42 D) by post hoc Tukey analysis. Differences in amplitude between the proximal and proximal-lens (letter) protocol were different by age group (p = 0 .003), with the youngest group having larger differences (1.14 ± 1.58 D) than the oldest groups (0.17 ± 0.58 and 0.29 ± 0.48 D, respectively) by post hoc Tukey analysis.Conclusions: The proximal-lens protocols took less time and identified the maximum accommodative amplitude in participants aged 15 to 24 years; however, they may underestimate true amplitude in younger children.","PeriodicalId":19649,"journal":{"name":"Optometry and Vision Science","volume":"101 2","pages":"109-116"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Optometry and Vision Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000002103","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Significance: This study provides a faster method for objectively measuring accommodative amplitude with an open-field autorefractor in a research setting.

Purpose: Objective measures of accommodative amplitude with an autorefractor take time because of the numerous stimulus demands tested. This study compares protocols using different amounts and types of demands to shorten the process.

Methods: One hundred participants were recruited for four age bins (5 to 9, 10 to 14, 15 to 19, and 20 to 24 years) and monocular amplitude measured with an autorefractor using three protocols: proximal, proximal-lens (letter), and proximal-lens (picture). For proximal, measurements were taken as participants viewed a 0.9 mm "E" placed at 13 demands (40 to 3.3 cm = 2.5 to 30 D). The other protocols used a target (either the "E" or a detailed picture) placed at 33 and 12.5 cm followed by 12.5 cm with a series of lenses (-2, -4, and -5.5 D). Adjustments were made for lens effectivity for the three lens conditions, which were thus 9.6, 11.1, and 12.0 D for individuals without additional spectacle lenses. Accommodative amplitude was defined as the greatest response measured with each technique. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare group mean amplitudes across protocols and differences between letter protocols by age bin.

Results: Amplitudes were significantly different between protocols (p < 0.001), with proximal having higher amplitudes (mean ± standard deviation, 8.04 ± 1.70 D) compared with both proximal-lens protocols (letter, 7.48 ± 1.42 D; picture, 7.43 ± 1.42 D) by post hoc Tukey analysis. Differences in amplitude between the proximal and proximal-lens (letter) protocol were different by age group (p = 0 .003), with the youngest group having larger differences (1.14 ± 1.58 D) than the oldest groups (0.17 ± 0.58 and 0.29 ± 0.48 D, respectively) by post hoc Tukey analysis.

Conclusions: The proximal-lens protocols took less time and identified the maximum accommodative amplitude in participants aged 15 to 24 years; however, they may underestimate true amplitude in younger children.

查看原文本刊更多论文

近镜和负镜自动折射技术在测量单眼容纳振幅方面的比较。

意义：目的：使用自动折射仪客观测量适应振幅需要时间，因为需要测试大量的刺激要求。本研究比较了使用不同数量和类型的要求来缩短测量过程的方案：招募了 100 名参与者，分为四个年龄段（5 至 9 岁、10 至 14 岁、15 至 19 岁和 20 至 24 岁），使用自动屈光仪测量单眼振幅，采用三种方案：近端、近端-透镜（字母）和近端-透镜（图片）。对于近视，测量是在参试者观看一个 0.9 毫米的 "E "时进行的，该 "E "放置在 13 点（40 至 3.3 厘米 = 2.5 至 30 D）。其他方案则使用放置在 33 厘米和 12.5 厘米处的目标（"E "或详细图片），然后是 12.5 厘米处的一系列镜片（-2、-4 和 -5.5D）。根据三种镜片条件的镜片效果进行调整，因此，对于没有额外眼镜片的人来说，镜片效果分别为 9.6、11.1 和 12.0 D。屈光幅度定义为每种技术测得的最大反应。采用单因素方差分析来比较不同方案的组平均振幅以及不同年龄组字母方案之间的差异：通过事后 Tukey 分析，不同方案之间的振幅有明显差异（p < 0.001），近端方案的振幅（平均值 ± 标准差，8.04 ± 1.70 D）高于近端透镜方案（字母方案，7.48 ± 1.42 D；图片方案，7.43 ± 1.42 D）。近端和近端透镜（字母）方案之间的振幅差异因年龄组而异（p = 0 .003），通过事后 Tukey 分析，最年轻组的差异（1.14 ± 1.58 D）大于最年长组（分别为 0.17 ± 0.58 和 0.29 ± 0.48 D）：结论：近端透镜方案耗时较短，可识别 15 至 24 岁参与者的最大适应振幅；但可能低估了年龄较小儿童的真实振幅。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Optometry and Vision Science 医学-眼科学

CiteScore

2.80

自引率

7.10%

发文量

210

审稿时长

3-6 weeks

期刊介绍： Optometry and Vision Science is the monthly peer-reviewed scientific publication of the American Academy of Optometry, publishing original research since 1924. Optometry and Vision Science is an internationally recognized source for education and information on current discoveries in optometry, physiological optics, vision science, and related fields. The journal considers original contributions that advance clinical practice, vision science, and public health. Authors should remember that the journal reaches readers worldwide and their submissions should be relevant and of interest to a broad audience. Topical priorities include, but are not limited to: clinical and laboratory research, evidence-based reviews, contact lenses, ocular growth and refractive error development, eye movements, visual function and perception, biology of the eye and ocular disease, epidemiology and public health, biomedical optics and instrumentation, novel and important clinical observations and treatments, and optometric education.