Literature DB >> 9224278

Integration of a sensory component into the accommodation model reveals differences between emmetropia and late-onset myopia.

B C Jiang1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the differences in accommodative function between subjects with emmetropia and those with late-onset myopia (LOM).
METHODS: This study suggests a modified model of static accommodation, in which an accommodative sensory gain as a linear operator is added to simulate the sensory part of the system. Results derived from the model show that the sensory part not only affects the slope of the accommodative response function but also increases the system's effective threshold (ET) to the blur signal. This method expands the utility of using the control model to evaluate accommodation behavior. Thirteen emmetropic and 10 LOM subjects participated in this study. The subject's accommodative responses to one-, two-, three-, and four-diopter stimuli were measured by the Canon R-1 optometer, and the differences in dark focus, the slope of the accommodative response function, and the ET were compared between the emmetropic and the LOM subjects.
RESULTS: The results show that although the dark-focus values and the slopes of the accommodative response function are not significantly different in emmetropia and LOM, the ETs are significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: The higher ET found among subjects with LOM suggests that either the blur (or the error) signal is degraded significantly in the sensory part of the system, the dead space as an internal threshold of the system is high, or both factors are important. On the basis of further analysis of the data, we speculate that the sensory system in LOM subjects was less sensitive to blur than that of the emmetropic subjects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9224278

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci        ISSN: 0146-0404            Impact factor:   4.799


  5 in total

1.  Characteristics of accommodative behavior during sustained reading in emmetropes and myopes.

Authors:  Elise Harb; Frank Thorn; David Troilo
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2006-03-20       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  Vergence driven accommodation with simulated disparity in myopia and emmetropia.

Authors:  Guido Maiello; Kristen L Kerber; Frank Thorn; Peter J Bex; Fuensanta A Vera-Diaz
Journal:  Exp Eye Res       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 3.467

3.  Comparison of three monocular methods for measuring accommodative stimulus-response curves.

Authors:  Yunyun Chen; Wanqing Jin; Zhili Zheng; Chuanchuan Zhang; Huiling Lin; Björn Drobe; Jinhua Bao; Hao Chen
Journal:  Clin Exp Optom       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 2.742

4.  The effect of refractive surgery on blur thresholds.

Authors:  Rachapalle Reddi Sudhir; Hadiya Farhath Pattan; Mehal Rathore; Mohana Kuppuswamy Parthasarathy; Prema Padmanabhan; Vasudevan Lakshminarayanan
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 1.848

5.  Accommodation lags are higher in myopia than in emmetropia: Measurement methods and metrics matter.

Authors:  Dinesh Kaphle; Saulius R Varnas; Katrina L Schmid; Marwan Suheimat; Alexander Leube; David A Atchison
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 3.992

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.