Mikel Aldaba1,2, Carles Otero1,2, Jaume Pujol1,2, David A Atchison3. 1. Davalor Research Center (DRC), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Terrassa, Spain. 2. Centre for Sensors, Instruments, and Systems Development (CD6), Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya (UPC), Terrassa, Spain. 3. Institute of Health & Biomedical Innovation and School of Optometry & Vision Science, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study whether the accommodation response to Badal optometer is equivalent to the response for real space targets. METHODS: Accommodative responses were measured for 28 young eyes with the WAM-5500 autorefractometer in eight configurations for 0.17 D, 2.0 D and 5.0 D accommodation stimuli. Parameters that might contribute to differences in response were systematically isolated: stimulation method (real space vs Badal targets), field of view, instrument's cover proximity, the looming effect, and the peripheral interposition of objects in depth. RESULTS: Mean accommodative response differences between a natural view configuration and a configuration with a Badal Optometer were 0.50 ± 0.43 D and 0.58 ± 0.53 D for 2.0 D and 5.0 D stimulation, respectively (p < 0.001), with accommodation lags for the latter condition. Of the isolated parameters that might contribute to these differences, varying the interposition of objects in depth affected accommodation response more markedly. CONCLUSIONS: It is likely that Badal optometers affect accommodation through a combination of some or all of the studied parameters. We conclude that accommodation response to closed-view Badal optometers is not equivalent to real space target response.
PURPOSE: To study whether the accommodation response to Badal optometer is equivalent to the response for real space targets. METHODS: Accommodative responses were measured for 28 young eyes with the WAM-5500 autorefractometer in eight configurations for 0.17 D, 2.0 D and 5.0 D accommodation stimuli. Parameters that might contribute to differences in response were systematically isolated: stimulation method (real space vs Badal targets), field of view, instrument's cover proximity, the looming effect, and the peripheral interposition of objects in depth. RESULTS: Mean accommodative response differences between a natural view configuration and a configuration with a Badal Optometer were 0.50 ± 0.43 D and 0.58 ± 0.53 D for 2.0 D and 5.0 D stimulation, respectively (p < 0.001), with accommodation lags for the latter condition. Of the isolated parameters that might contribute to these differences, varying the interposition of objects in depth affected accommodation response more markedly. CONCLUSIONS: It is likely that Badal optometers affect accommodation through a combination of some or all of the studied parameters. We conclude that accommodation response to closed-view Badal optometers is not equivalent to real space target response.