Sidney M Parks, Marjean T Kulp, Heather A Anderson
{"title":"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。","authors":"Sidney M Parks, Marjean T Kulp, Heather A Anderson","doi":"10.1097/OPX.0000000000002103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Significance: </strong>This study provides a faster method for objectively measuring accommodative amplitude with an open-field autorefractor in a research setting.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","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":"{\"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\":\"<p><strong>Significance: </strong>This study provides a faster method for objectively measuring accommodative amplitude with an open-field autorefractor in a research setting.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"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}","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}
Comparison of proximal and minus lens autorefraction techniques to measure monocular accommodative amplitude.
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
