March 2012
Volume 53, Issue 14
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   March 2012
Is Reversed Chromostereopsis Associated with Impaired Accommodation to Wavefront and Chromatic Aberration?
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Clarissa Kum
    SUNY State College of Optometry, New York, New York
  • Dejana Grk
    MWU Arizona College of Optometry, Glendale, Arizona
  • Philip B. Kruger
    SUNY State College of Optometry, New York, New York
  • Mitchell Dul
    SUNY State College of Optometry, New York, New York
  • Lawrence R. Stark
    Southern California College of Optometry, Fullerton, California
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Clarissa Kum, None; Dejana Grk, None; Philip B. Kruger, None; Mitchell Dul, None; Lawrence R. Stark, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  NEI T35 Summer Research Training Grant
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science March 2012, Vol.53, 1370. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Clarissa Kum, Dejana Grk, Philip B. Kruger, Mitchell Dul, Lawrence R. Stark; Is Reversed Chromostereopsis Associated with Impaired Accommodation to Wavefront and Chromatic Aberration?. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012;53(14):1370.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : Ocular accommodation to wavefront and chromatic aberration varies widely among observers. Reasons for the large inter-subject variation are unknown. Positive chromostereopsis (red targets appear closer than blue targets when viewed binocularly on a black background) is reversed in a minority of the population, so that blue targets appear closer than red. Since chromatic aberration specifies distance and relative depth both monocularly and binocularly, our aim was to determine whether negative (reversed) chromostereopsis influences accommodative gain to wavefront and chromatic aberration.

Methods: : Chromostereopsis was measured in 30 observers (21-27 yrs) using a checkerboard target of 64 (8x8) red and blue squares on a black background viewed at 1 meter. Luminance of the blue and red squares was matched (22 cd/m2) and blur of blue and red squares was matched using trial lenses. The subject was asked whether the blue and red squares appeared equidistant or whether blue or red squares appeared closer. Relative depth was measured monocularly and binocularly. Accommodation was recorded at 100 Hz while viewing a high contrast Maltese cross in a Badal optical system through a 3 mm artificial pupil, while wavefront vergence (Zernike defocus) changed sinusoidally (1-3 D) at 0.2Hz. Six trials were run in white light (3000K; 20 cd/m2) and six in monochromatic light (550 nm: 12nm bandwidth; 20 cd/m2). Each trial lasted 40.96 seconds. Dynamic gains and temporal phase-lags of accommodation were extracted by Fourier transform of the data.

Results: : Seventeen subjects (57%) had positive chromostereopsis and accommodation gains varied between 0.1 and 0.8. Four subjects (13%) had negative chromostereopsis and their respective accommodation gains were 0.1, 0.4, 0.4 and 0.9. Nine subjects (30%) reported no chromostereopsis and gains varied between 0.1 and 0.8. Gains for the three groups were not significantly different (Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA; KW = 0.37; p > 0.8).

Conclusions: : Reversed chromostereopsis does not seem to influence accommodation to wavefront and chromatic aberration.

Keywords: accommodation • chromatic mechanisms • aberrations 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×