Literature DB >> 1771070

The effect of mental effort on open- and closed-loop accommodation.

B Winn1, B Gilmartin, L C Mortimer, N R Edwards.   

Abstract

The accommodative response to stimuli in normal visual environments is determined by a complex and subtle integration of optical and non-optical factors. Mental effort associated with the visual task can modify significantly the steady-state accommodative level, but, owing to the diversity of experimental designs, there is no clear consensus on the mechanisms involved. Changes in the accommodation response of ten emmetropic subjects (mean (+/- SD) age = 20.4 +/- 4.5 years) under open- and closed-loop conditions were investigated for three levels of mental activity. (1) A passive task whereby subjects simply read letters to themselves. (2) A stimulus-dependent task (SDT) whereby subjects are instructed to respond only when the letter 'e' appears in one of a series of presentations. (3) A stimulus-independent task (SIT) whereby subjects count backwards in sevens to themselves while viewing the target. An objective infra-red (IR) optometer was used in its static mode of operation to make monocular measurements of accommodation under monocular viewing conditions. Open-loop conditions were achieved by placing a pinhole (0.5 mm diameter), drilled into an IR filter, 12 mm in front of the eye. Under closed-loop conditions the mean accommodation response for passive viewing of the near target was +3.08 D. A significant (F = 5.45 d.f. 9,18 P less than 0.005) accommodative shift induced by mental effort in the mean response of +0.17 D occurred for the SDT. The SIT induced a mean shift of -0.05 D which was not significantly different to the passive viewing response.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1771070

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


  7 in total

1.  Accommodative lag and juvenile-onset myopia progression in children wearing refractive correction.

Authors:  David A Berntsen; Loraine T Sinnott; Donald O Mutti; Karla Zadnik
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-02-20       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 2.  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

3.  Tonic accommodation predicts closed-loop accommodation responses.

Authors:  Chunming Liu; Stefanie A Drew; Eric Borsting; Amy Escobar; Lawrence Stark; Christopher Chase
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Cognitive Demand and Accommodative Microfluctuations.

Authors:  Niall J Hynes; Matthew P Cufflin; Karen M Hampson; Edward A H Mallen
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2018-09-06

Review 5.  Sources of error in clinical measurement of the amplitude of accommodation.

Authors:  David H Burns; Peter M Allen; David F Edgar; Bruce J W Evans
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2019-07-11

6.  Ocular accommodation and cognitive demand: an additional indicator besides pupil size and cardiovascular measures?

Authors:  Stephanie Jainta; Joerg Hoormann; Wolfgang Jaschinski
Journal:  J Negat Results Biomed       Date:  2008-08-23

7.  The effect of image resolution of display types on accommodative microfluctuations.

Authors:  Niall J Hynes; Matthew P Cufflin; Karen M Hampson; Edward Ah Mallen
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 3.992

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.