Jingjing Xu1,2, Xin Lu3, Zhili Zheng1, Jinhua Bao1,2, Nisha Singh4, Björn Drobe2,4, Hao Chen1,2. 1. Wenzhou Medical University (WMU), Wenzhou, China. 2. WMU-Essilor International Research Centre (WEIRC), Wenzhou, China. 3. Ningbo Medical Center Lihuili Hospital, Ningbo, China. 4. R&D Vision Sciences AMERA, Essilor International, Singapore.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The spatial frequency (SF) characteristics of accommodation in children are not well understood. In this study, we measured accommodative responses to grating targets to investigate the SF dependence of accommodation in children. METHODS: The effects of SF and contrast on the accommodative system were evaluated in two groups of children, including 22 with emmetropia and 20 with myopia. The contrast detection thresholds at five SFs were measured using a near-contrast sensitivity function test. The accommodative responses to grating targets with low (1.5 cycles per degree [cpd]), medium (6 cpd), and high (18 cpd) SFs were measured with a Grand Seiko WAM-5500 in dynamic mode for 30 seconds under standard and detection threshold contrast conditions. The accommodative lag and accommodative microfluctuations (AMFs) were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Under standard contrast conditions, no significant difference was found in the accommodative lag across SFs (F = 2.03, P = 0.14) or between the two groups (F = 3.57, P = 0.07). The AMFs were lowest at 6 cpd in emmetropia group (F = 6.51, P = 0.003) and in total (F = 10.82, P < 0.001). Children in emmetropia group showed greater AMFs at high SFs under detection threshold contrast conditions than under standard contrast conditions (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the instability of accommodation was SF dependent in children. The AMFs in children were smallest at the medium SF for standard contrast grating targets. Myopic children are less sensitive to the low-contrast-induced blur for high SFs than emmetropic children. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: This study provides a possibility to stabilize accommodative response of children by transforming SF components of fixation targets.
PURPOSE: The spatial frequency (SF) characteristics of accommodation in children are not well understood. In this study, we measured accommodative responses to grating targets to investigate the SF dependence of accommodation in children. METHODS: The effects of SF and contrast on the accommodative system were evaluated in two groups of children, including 22 with emmetropia and 20 with myopia. The contrast detection thresholds at five SFs were measured using a near-contrast sensitivity function test. The accommodative responses to grating targets with low (1.5 cycles per degree [cpd]), medium (6 cpd), and high (18 cpd) SFs were measured with a Grand Seiko WAM-5500 in dynamic mode for 30 seconds under standard and detection threshold contrast conditions. The accommodative lag and accommodative microfluctuations (AMFs) were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Under standard contrast conditions, no significant difference was found in the accommodative lag across SFs (F = 2.03, P = 0.14) or between the two groups (F = 3.57, P = 0.07). The AMFs were lowest at 6 cpd in emmetropia group (F = 6.51, P = 0.003) and in total (F = 10.82, P < 0.001). Children in emmetropia group showed greater AMFs at high SFs under detection threshold contrast conditions than under standard contrast conditions (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the instability of accommodation was SF dependent in children. The AMFs in children were smallest at the medium SF for standard contrast grating targets. Myopic children are less sensitive to the low-contrast-induced blur for high SFs than emmetropic children. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: This study provides a possibility to stabilize accommodative response of children by transforming SF components of fixation targets.
Entities:
Keywords:
accommodative microfluctuations; accommodative response; contrast sensitivity; myopia; spatial frequency
Authors: Donald O Mutti; G Lynn Mitchell; John R Hayes; Lisa A Jones; Melvin L Moeschberger; Susan A Cotter; Robert N Kleinstein; Ruth E Manny; J Daniel Twelker; Karla Zadnik Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Trine Langaas; Patricia M Riddell; Ellen Svarverud; Ann E Ystenaes; Irene Langeggen; Jan Richard Bruenech Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Cheng-Cheng Jin; Ru-Xia Pei; Bei Du; Gui-Hua Liu; Nan Jin; Lin Liu; Rui-Hua Wei Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-07-18 Impact factor: 1.779