Literature DB >> 1408184

Current perspective on microfluctuations of accommodation.

B Winn1, B Gilmartin.   

Abstract

The collaboration of Fergus Campbell, Gerald Westheimer and John Robson in the 1950s produced insight into the nature of accommodation microfluctuations and instigated work which has led to the current view that the nominally steady-state accommodation response exhibits temporal variations which can be characterized by two dominant regions of activity: a low-frequency component (LFC less than 0.6 Hz) and a high-frequency component (HFC greater than or equal to 1.0 less than or equal to 2.3 Hz). A functional role has been attributed to these microfluctuations as they offer a means by which a directional cue could be derived from an even-error stimulus. However, there is no consensus regarding the respective contribution made by each of the dominant components in the accommodation control process. Using a newly-designed measurement and recording system we have conducted a series of experiments to investigate the nature and aetiology of the microfluctuations. The incidence and magnitude of microfluctuations in LFCs and HFCs for central and peripheral lens zones were investigated while five young emmetropic subjects viewed a near target. The form of the power spectra of the fluctuations was found to be similar for central and peripheral zones although an overall reduction in magnitude was observed in the periphery. The HFCs are thus a consistent feature of microfluctuations in central zones and not, as previously suggested, merely a spurious feature of peripheral zones. A significant between-subject variation in the location of HFCs was found and led us to consider the relationship between HFCs and other physiological systems which provide intraocular rhythmic variation.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1408184     DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.1992.tb00301.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt        ISSN: 0275-5408            Impact factor:   3.117


  8 in total

1.  Is there any difference in using blur as a stimulus for accommodation between emmetropes and myopes?

Authors:  Ai Hong Chen
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  The flickering wheel illusion: when α rhythms make a static wheel flicker.

Authors:  Rodika Sokoliuk; Rufin VanRullen
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-08-14       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Microsaccades drive illusory motion in the Enigma illusion.

Authors:  Xoana G Troncoso; Stephen L Macknik; Jorge Otero-Millan; Susana Martinez-Conde
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-10-08       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Creating correct blur and its effect on accommodation.

Authors:  Steven A Cholewiak; Gordon D Love; Martin S Banks
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 5.  Evolution of control system models of ocular accommodation, vergence and their interaction.

Authors:  A S Eadie; P J Carlin
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 2.602

6.  Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder children exhibit an impaired accommodative response.

Authors:  Beatriz Redondo; Jesús Vera; Rubén Molina; José Antonio García; Miriam Ouadi; Antonio Muñoz-Hoyos; Raimundo Jiménez
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-03-22       Impact factor: 3.117

7.  The stability of steady state accommodation in human infants.

Authors:  T Rowan Candy; Shrikant R Bharadwaj
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2007-08-17       Impact factor: 2.240

8.  Mesopic Functional Visual Acuity in Normal Subjects.

Authors:  Takahiro Hiraoka; Sujin Hoshi; Yoshifumi Okamoto; Fumiki Okamoto; Tetsuro Oshika
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-28       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.