Literature DB >> 24158371

Comparing accommodative function between the dominant and non-dominant eye.

Hamed Momeni-Moghaddam1, Colm McAlinden, Abbas Azimi, Mina Sobhani, Eirini Skiadaresi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To compare the accommodative amplitude (AA), facility (AF), and lag between dominant and non-dominant eyes.
METHODS: Seventy students [mean (SD) age: 21.2 (1.7) years, range 18-25] from Zahedan University of Medical Sciences were selected. Retinoscopy and subjective refraction was used to determine the refractive error. The hole-in-the card method was used to determine eye dominance. The accommodative amplitude (AA) was measured in the dominant and non-dominant eye using the push-up method, and accommodative facility (AF) using ±2.00 dioptre flipper lenses at 40 cm. Accommodative lag was determined using monocular estimate method (MEM) retinoscopy at 40 cm.
RESULTS: The right eye was dominant in 53 subjects (75.7 %). There was no significant difference in refractive error (sphere, cylinder, and spherical equivalent) between dominant and non-dominant eyes. The mean (SD) for the AA, AF, and lag in dominant eyes was 12.48 (2.56) dioptres, 12.45 (4.83) cycles per minute, and 0.80 (0.27) dioptres respectively. The mean (SD) for the AA, AF, and lag in non-dominant eyes was 12.16 (2.37) dioptres, 12.20 (4.88) cycles per minute, and 0.83 (0.28) dioptres respectively. The mean (SD) difference in AA, AF, and lag between dominant and non dominant eyes was 0.32 (0.75) dioptres (P = 0.001), 0.25 (1.05) cycles per minute (P = 0.04), and -0.02 (0.11) dioptres (P = 0.10) respectively. The AA and AF was statistically better (P < 0.05) in the dominant eye group than in the non-dominant eye group. These data provided little evidence of any difference in the accommodative lag between dominant and non-dominant eyes (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The right eye was dominant in 76 % of subjects. Superior AA and AF was found in the dominant eye as determined by hole-in-the card method in young healthy adults, although these differences are perhaps not of clinical significance (<0.50 dioptres and <2 cycles per minute).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24158371     DOI: 10.1007/s00417-013-2480-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0721-832X            Impact factor:   3.117


  21 in total

1.  MEM and Nott dynamic retinoscopy in patients with disorders of vergence and accommodation.

Authors:  Angel García; Pilar Cacho
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Hand dominance, eye laterality and refraction.

Authors:  Ahmad M Mansour; Zaher M Sbeity; Kassem M Kassak
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol Scand       Date:  2003-02

3.  Association of ocular dominance and anisometropic myopia.

Authors:  Ching-Yu Cheng; May-Yung Yen; Hsin-Yi Lin; Wei-Wei Hsia; Wen-Ming Hsu
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.799

4.  Association between ocular dominance and spherical/astigmatic anisometropia, age, and sex: analysis of 10,264 myopic individuals.

Authors:  Stephan J Linke; Julio Baviera; Gur Munzer; Johannes Steinberg; Gisbert Richard; Toam Katz
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2011-11-25       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Visual outcomes of LASIK-induced monovision in myopic patients with presbyopia.

Authors:  Montserrat Garcia-Gonzalez; Miguel A Teus; José L Hernandez-Verdejo
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 5.258

6.  Characteristics of dynamic accommodation responses: comparison between the dominant and non-dominant eyes.

Authors:  K Ibi
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.117

7.  Referral recommendations for binocular function and/or developmental perceptual deficiencies.

Authors:  L G Hoffman; M Rouse
Journal:  J Am Optom Assoc       Date:  1980-02

8.  Quantifying sensory eye dominance in the normal visual system: a new technique and insights into variation across traditional tests.

Authors:  Jingrong Li; Carly S Y Lam; Minbin Yu; Robert F Hess; Lily Y L Chan; Goro Maehara; George C Woo; Benjamin Thompson
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 4.799

9.  Adie syndrome: evidence for refractive error and accomodative asymmetry as the cause of amblyopia.

Authors:  A Y Firth
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 5.258

10.  Reading ability and stereoacuity with combined implantation of refractive and diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses.

Authors:  Weirong Chen; Qianli Meng; Haiyun Ye; Yizhi Liu
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-10-30       Impact factor: 3.761

View more
  7 in total

1.  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

2.  Accommodative changes after SMILE for moderate to high myopia correction.

Authors:  Ke Zheng; Tian Han; Xingtao Zhou
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 2.209

3.  Variability in monocular and binocular fixation during standard automated perimetry.

Authors:  Kazunori Hirasawa; Kaoru Kobayashi; Asuka Shibamoto; Houmi Tobari; Yuki Fukuda; Nobuyuki Shoji
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-21       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  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

5.  Changes in accommodative function following small-incision lenticule extraction for high myopia.

Authors:  Anders Gyldenkerne; Nicolaj Aagaard; Malene Jakobsen; Carina Toftelund; Jesper Hjortdal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-30       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Ocular Dominance and Functional Asymmetry in Visual Attention Networks.

Authors:  Sinan Liu; Bingyang Zhao; Chaoqun Shi; Xuying Ma; Bernhard A Sabel; Xiping Chen; Luyang Tao
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 4.799

7.  Progression of Vision in Chinese School-Aged Children Before and After COVID-19.

Authors:  Wenjing Wang; Shuzhen Peng; Faxue Zhang; Boya Zhu; Longjiang Zhang; Xiaodong Tan
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2022-08-11       Impact factor: 5.100

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.