Literature DB >> 27637161

Optical factors influencing the amplitude of accommodation.

Diego López-Alcón1, Iván Marín-Franch2, Vicente Fernández-Sánchez1, Norberto López-Gil3.   

Abstract

The purpose of this work was to find plausible predictors among optical parameters that may explain the inter-individual differences in subjective amplitude of accommodation not explained by age. An exploratory multivariable regression analysis was carried out retrospectively on a dataset with 180 eyes from 97 subjects (ages ranged from 20 to 58years). Subjective amplitudes of accommodation were recorded with the use of a custom-made Badal system. A commercial aberrometer was used to obtain each eye's wavefront during the full range of accommodation. The plausible predictors under study were pupil diameter in the unaccommodated eye, its reduction with accommodation; fourth- and six-order Zernike spherical aberration, their reduction with accommodation, and subjective refraction. At a significance level of 0.05, only fourth- and sixth-order Zernike spherical aberration were found to be predictors of subjective amplitude of accommodation not explained by age, each explaining on their own less than 5% of the variance, and about 9% together. All other optical parameters explained less than 2%. Spherical aberration did not explain the greater variability for younger eyes than for older eyes. The remainder variability in amplitude of accommodation not explained by age or spherical aberration was about ±2.6D for 20year-old subjects, ±1.5D for 40year-old subjects, and about ±0.6D for 55year-old subjects. Optical factors do not seem to account for much of the inter-individual differences in subjective amplitude of accommodation. Most of the variability not explained by age must be due to anatomical differences and physiological, psychological, or other factors.
Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Aberrometry; Amplitude of accommodation; Depth of focus; Presbyopia; Spherical aberration; Statistical modeling

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27637161     DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2016.09.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  6 in total

1.  Distribution and progression of add power among people in need of near correction.

Authors:  Xiaotong Han; Pei Ying Lee; Chi Liu; Mingguang He
Journal:  Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 4.207

2.  Factors Influencing Pseudo-Accommodation-The Difference between Subjectively Reported Range of Clear Focus and Objectively Measured Accommodation Range.

Authors:  Sandeep K Dhallu; Amy L Sheppard; Tom Drew; Toshifumi Mihashi; Juan F Zapata-Díaz; Hema Radhakrishnan; D Robert Iskander; James S Wolffsohn
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2019-06-28

3.  Predicting subjective refraction with dynamic retinal image quality analysis.

Authors:  Andrea Gil; Carlos S Hernández; Ahhyun Stephanie Nam; Varshini Varadaraj; Nicholas J Durr; Daryl Lim; Shivang R Dave; Eduardo Lage
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Objective Accommodation Amplitude Measurements Using a New Autorefractometer Device.

Authors:  Kemal Ozulken; Hasan Kiziltoprak
Journal:  Beyoglu Eye J       Date:  2019-12-25

5.  Effect of phenylephrine on static and dynamic accommodation.

Authors:  Antonio J Del Águila-Carrasco; Francisco Lara; Paula Bernal-Molina; Resurrección Riquelme-Nicolás; Iván Marín-Franch; José J Esteve-Taboada; Robert Montés-Micó; Philip B Kruger; Norberto López-Gil
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2018-03-27

6.  A Novel Intraocular Lens Simulator that Allows Patients to Experience the World Through Multifocal Intraocular Lenses Before Surgeries.

Authors:  Kyung-Sun Na; Seong-Jae Kim; Gahee Nam; Minji Ha; Woong-Joo Whang; Eun Chul Kim; Hyun-Seung Kim; Ho Sik Hwang
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 3.048

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.