Comparisons of proximal vergence measures.

N. Fogt
{"title":"Comparisons of proximal vergence measures.","authors":"N. Fogt","doi":"10.31707/vdr2020.6.3.p252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background\nProximal vergence is defined as a vergence eye movement subtype driven by an \"awareness of nearness\". The purpose of this experiment was to compare values of proximal vergence calculated with and without measures of accommodation to assess the clinical utility of each measurement method.\n\n\nMethods\nThirteen participants between the ages of 22 and 37 (mean = 28.5 ± 4.5 years) were enrolled. The distance and near heterophoria were measured using the Modified Thorington technique. The near heterophoria was measured under three randomized viewing conditions (no lenses, +1.00D lenses, +2.50D lenses). Refractive error was measured with an autorefractor. Proximal vergence was calculated as the difference in calculated (far-near) and gradient (+1.00) stimulus AC/A ratios (stimulus AC/A differencing method), the difference in calculated and gradient response AC/A ratios (response AC/A differencing method), and the change in vergence from distance to near with the +2.50D lenses (uncorrected +2.50D method). This latter value was also corrected for any active accommodation with +2.50D lenses (corrected +2.50D method).\n\n\nResults\nThe mean proximal vergence values (Δ) were 7.82 ± 5.98 (stimulus AC/A differencing method), 8.29 ± 3.30 (response AC/A differencing method), 6.23 ± 3.52 (uncorrected +2.50D method), and 5.13 ± 2.98 (corrected +2.50D method). The only comparison that showed both a significant correlation (p<0.05) and a non-significant difference from the paired t-test (p>0.05) was that between the stimulus AC/A differencing method and the uncorrected +2.50D method.\n\n\nConclusions\nWhen response accommodation was accounted for, differences occurred in the mean proximal values obtained with the various methods. The means of the methods most likely to be used clinically (stimulus AC/A differencing method and uncorrected +2.50D method) were similar, although some individuals demonstrated significant differences between these methods.","PeriodicalId":91423,"journal":{"name":"Vision development and rehabilitation","volume":"6 3 1","pages":"252-263"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vision development and rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31707/vdr2020.6.3.p252","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background Proximal vergence is defined as a vergence eye movement subtype driven by an "awareness of nearness". The purpose of this experiment was to compare values of proximal vergence calculated with and without measures of accommodation to assess the clinical utility of each measurement method. Methods Thirteen participants between the ages of 22 and 37 (mean = 28.5 ± 4.5 years) were enrolled. The distance and near heterophoria were measured using the Modified Thorington technique. The near heterophoria was measured under three randomized viewing conditions (no lenses, +1.00D lenses, +2.50D lenses). Refractive error was measured with an autorefractor. Proximal vergence was calculated as the difference in calculated (far-near) and gradient (+1.00) stimulus AC/A ratios (stimulus AC/A differencing method), the difference in calculated and gradient response AC/A ratios (response AC/A differencing method), and the change in vergence from distance to near with the +2.50D lenses (uncorrected +2.50D method). This latter value was also corrected for any active accommodation with +2.50D lenses (corrected +2.50D method). Results The mean proximal vergence values (Δ) were 7.82 ± 5.98 (stimulus AC/A differencing method), 8.29 ± 3.30 (response AC/A differencing method), 6.23 ± 3.52 (uncorrected +2.50D method), and 5.13 ± 2.98 (corrected +2.50D method). The only comparison that showed both a significant correlation (p<0.05) and a non-significant difference from the paired t-test (p>0.05) was that between the stimulus AC/A differencing method and the uncorrected +2.50D method. Conclusions When response accommodation was accounted for, differences occurred in the mean proximal values obtained with the various methods. The means of the methods most likely to be used clinically (stimulus AC/A differencing method and uncorrected +2.50D method) were similar, although some individuals demonstrated significant differences between these methods.
近端收敛测度的比较。
背景近端会聚是指由“接近意识”驱动的会聚眼动亚型。本实验的目的是比较在有和没有调节测量的情况下计算的近端会聚值,以评估每种测量方法的临床实用性。方法13名年龄在22岁至37岁之间(平均=28.5±4.5岁)的参与者被纳入研究。使用改良的Thorington技术测量距离和近距离斜视。在三种随机观察条件下(无晶状体、+1.00D晶状体和+2.50D晶状体)测量近斜视。折射误差是用自动折射器测量的。近端会聚计算为计算的(远-近)和梯度(+1.00)刺激AC/A比率的差异(刺激AC/A差分法)、计算的和梯度响应AC/A比率(响应AC/A差法)的差异,以及+2.50D透镜从远处到近处的会聚变化(未校正的+2.50D法)。结果平均近端会聚值(Δ)分别为7.82±5.98(刺激AC/A差分法)、8.29±3.30(反应AC/A差法)、6.23±3.52(未校正+2.50D法)和5.13±2.98(校正+2.50 D法)。唯一显示两种显著相关性的比较(p0.05)是刺激AC/a差异法和未校正的+2.50D法之间的比较。结论当考虑到反应调节时,不同方法获得的平均近端值存在差异。临床上最有可能使用的方法(刺激AC/A差分法和未校正+2.50D法)的平均值相似,尽管一些人在这些方法之间表现出显著差异。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信