Literature DB >> 9135812

Characteristics of dynamic accommodation responses: comparison between the dominant and non-dominant eyes.

K Ibi1.   

Abstract

Accommodation responses of dominant and non-dominant eyes were compared in 18 healthy subjects aged 19-21 years to clarify the characteristics of dynamic accommodation. Internal targets were placed at -0.25 D and -4.0 D in an infrared optometer of a modified model, and external targets (brightness 30 cd/cm2, diameter 35 mm) identical in appearance with the internal targets, were placed 4.0 m and 0.25 m in front of the eyes. Three experiments were carried out by monocular viewing of the internal targets and monocular and binocular viewing of the external targets, and the results were compared between the dominant and non-dominant eyes. In viewing the internal targets, near-to-far responses were suppressed. In binocular viewing, the accuracy of accommodative position was increased, and the function of dynamic responses was improved. Furthermore, myopic shifts were observed in the near position after far-to-near accommodation and in the far position after near-to-far accommodation in the dominant eye compared with the non-dominant eye, and shortening of the response time and an increase in the response velocity were noted only in binocular viewing. These findings suggest that the dominant eye is in a tonic state and plays the primary role in far-to-near accommodation in binocular viewing.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9135812

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt        ISSN: 0275-5408            Impact factor:   3.117


  7 in total

1.  Asymmetry of blinking.

Authors:  Iris S Kassem; Craig Evinger
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 4.799

2.  The horizontal dark oculomotor rest position.

Authors:  Eun H Kim; Tara L Alvarez
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-05-25       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Comparing accommodative function between the dominant and non-dominant eye.

Authors:  Hamed Momeni-Moghaddam; Colm McAlinden; Abbas Azimi; Mina Sobhani; Eirini Skiadaresi
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-10-26       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Effect of laser in situ keratomileusis on accommodation.

Authors:  Lei Liu; Jing Yuan; Jing Li; Xinyu Li; Yulong Wang
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2008-10-10

5.  The effect of bifocal add on accommodative lag in myopic children with high accommodative lag.

Authors:  David A Berntsen; Donald O Mutti; Karla Zadnik
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  The Effects of Visual Field Conditions on Electromyography of the Lower Extremities during Reaching Tasks in Healthy Adults.

Authors:  Jun Hyuk Park; Kyeong Soon Lee; Tae Young Oh
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2014-04-23

7.  Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile.

Authors:  Nicola Szostek; Hetal Buckhurst; Christine Purslow; Thomas Drew; Avril Collinson; Phillip Buckhurst
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2018-08-21
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.