Antonio J Del Águila-Carrasco1, Iván Marín-Franch1, Paula Bernal-Molina1, José J Esteve-Taboada1, Philip B Kruger2, Robert Montés-Micó1, Norberto López-Gil3. 1. Department of Optics and Optometry and Vision Sciences, University of Valencia, Burjassot, Valencia, Spain 2Interuniversity Laboratory for Research in Vision and Optometry, Mixed group UVEG-UMU, Valencia-Murcia, Spain. 2. State College of Optometry, State University of New York, New York, United States. 3. Interuniversity Laboratory for Research in Vision and Optometry, Mixed group UVEG-UMU, Valencia-Murcia, Spain 4Instituto Universitario de Investigación en Envejecimiento (IUIE), University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether changes in wavefront spherical curvature (optical vergence) are a directional cue for accommodation. Methods: Nine subjects participated in this experiment. The accommodation response to a monochromatic target was measured continuously with a custom-made adaptive optics system while astigmatism and higher-order aberrations were corrected in real time. There were two experimental open-loop conditions: vergence-driven condition, where the deformable mirror provided sinusoidal changes in defocus at the retina between -1 and +1 diopters (D) at 0.2 Hz; and blur-driven condition, in which the level of defocus at the retina was always 0 D, but a sinusoidal defocus blur between -1 and +1 D at 0.2 Hz was simulated in the target. Right before the beginning of each trial, the target was moved to an accommodative demand of 2 D. Results: Eight out of nine subjects showed sinusoidal responses for the vergence-driven condition but not for the blur-driven condition. Their average (±SD) gain for the vergence-driven condition was 0.50 (±0.28). For the blur-driven condition, average gain was much smaller at 0.07 (±0.03). The ninth subject showed little to no response for both conditions, with average gain <0.08. Vergence-driven condition gain was significantly different from blur-driven condition gain (P = 0.004). Conclusions: Accommodation responds to optical vergence, even without feedback, and not to changes in defocus blur alone. These results suggest the presence of a retinal mechanism that provides a directional cue for accommodation from optical vergence.
Purpose: To determine whether changes in wavefront spherical curvature (optical vergence) are a directional cue for accommodation. Methods: Nine subjects participated in this experiment. The accommodation response to a monochromatic target was measured continuously with a custom-made adaptive optics system while astigmatism and higher-order aberrations were corrected in real time. There were two experimental open-loop conditions: vergence-driven condition, where the deformable mirror provided sinusoidal changes in defocus at the retina between -1 and +1 diopters (D) at 0.2 Hz; and blur-driven condition, in which the level of defocus at the retina was always 0 D, but a sinusoidal defocus blur between -1 and +1 D at 0.2 Hz was simulated in the target. Right before the beginning of each trial, the target was moved to an accommodative demand of 2 D. Results: Eight out of nine subjects showed sinusoidal responses for the vergence-driven condition but not for the blur-driven condition. Their average (±SD) gain for the vergence-driven condition was 0.50 (±0.28). For the blur-driven condition, average gain was much smaller at 0.07 (±0.03). The ninth subject showed little to no response for both conditions, with average gain <0.08. Vergence-driven condition gain was significantly different from blur-driven condition gain (P = 0.004). Conclusions: Accommodation responds to optical vergence, even without feedback, and not to changes in defocus blur alone. These results suggest the presence of a retinal mechanism that provides a directional cue for accommodation from optical vergence.
Authors: Antonio J Del Águila-Carrasco; Philip B Kruger; Francisco Lara; Norberto López-Gil Journal: Clin Exp Optom Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 2.742
Authors: I Marín-Franch; A J Del Águila-Carrasco; P Bernal-Molina; J J Esteve-Taboada; N López-Gil; R Montés-Micó; P B Kruger Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2017-09-26 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: José J Esteve-Taboada; Antonio J Del Águila-Carrasco; Paula Bernal-Molina; Norberto López-Gil; Robert Montés-Micó; Philip Kruger; Iván Marín-Franch Journal: Vision Res Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Antonio J Del Águila-Carrasco; José J Esteve-Taboada; Eleni Papadatou; Teresa Ferrer-Blasco; Robert Montés-Micó Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Paula Bernal-Molina; Iván Marín-Franch; Antonio J Del Águila-Carrasco; Jose J Esteve-Taboada; Norberto López-Gil; Philip B Kruger; Robert Montés-Micó Journal: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 3.117
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