PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between photopic open-loop accommodation and vergence and the effect of mental effort on these positions. METHODS: Twenty subjects (11 men and 9 women) viewed monocularly a photopic (25 cdm-2), high-contrast (90%) Maltese cross-target for 3 minutes, through a 0.5-mm pinhole drilled into an infrared filter. Accommodation was measured objectively at 1-second intervals using a Canon Autoref R-1 infrared optometer, and vergence was recorded continuously and objectively using a differential infrared eye tracking system. RESULTS: Under passive viewing conditions there was a significant correlation between photopic open-loop accommodation and vergence (R = 0.671, P = 0.0012); for the majority of subjects the imposition of mental effort shifted the passive levels of both open-loop accommodation and vergence, but these shifts were unsystematic and uncorrelated (R = 0.259, P = 0.270). The active open-loop positions of accommodation and vergence were also found to be correlated (R = 0.692, P = 0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: The influence of proximal stimuli can explain the correlations identified between photopic open-loop positions of accommodation and vergence. The uncorrelated responses of the accommodation and vergence systems to mental effort are likely to reflect interactions between various spatiotopic stimuli including mental effort and perceived proximity.
PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between photopic open-loop accommodation and vergence and the effect of mental effort on these positions. METHODS: Twenty subjects (11 men and 9 women) viewed monocularly a photopic (25 cdm-2), high-contrast (90%) Maltese cross-target for 3 minutes, through a 0.5-mm pinhole drilled into an infrared filter. Accommodation was measured objectively at 1-second intervals using a Canon Autoref R-1 infrared optometer, and vergence was recorded continuously and objectively using a differential infrared eye tracking system. RESULTS: Under passive viewing conditions there was a significant correlation between photopic open-loop accommodation and vergence (R = 0.671, P = 0.0012); for the majority of subjects the imposition of mental effort shifted the passive levels of both open-loop accommodation and vergence, but these shifts were unsystematic and uncorrelated (R = 0.259, P = 0.270). The active open-loop positions of accommodation and vergence were also found to be correlated (R = 0.692, P = 0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: The influence of proximal stimuli can explain the correlations identified between photopic open-loop positions of accommodation and vergence. The uncorrelated responses of the accommodation and vergence systems to mental effort are likely to reflect interactions between various spatiotopic stimuli including mental effort and perceived proximity.