June 2017
Volume 58, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2017
Abnormal Effective Threshold to Blur in Graduate Students with Clinical Accommodative Disorders
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Chunming Liu
    College of Optometry, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California, United States
  • Christopher Chase
    College of Optometry, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California, United States
  • Eric Borsting
    Southern California College of Optometry at Marshall B. Ketchum University, Fullerton, California, United States
  • Lawrence R Stark
    Southern California College of Optometry at Marshall B. Ketchum University, Fullerton, California, United States
  • Stefanie A. Drew
    California State University Northridge, Northridge, California, United States
  • Amy Escobar
    Coastline Community College, Fountain Valley, California, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Chunming Liu, None; Christopher Chase, None; Eric Borsting, None; Lawrence Stark, None; Stefanie Drew, None; Amy Escobar, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH grant 1R15EY021021
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2017, Vol.58, 2058. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Chunming Liu, Christopher Chase, Eric Borsting, Lawrence R Stark, Stefanie A. Drew, Amy Escobar; Abnormal Effective Threshold to Blur in Graduate Students with Clinical Accommodative Disorders. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):2058.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in accommodative response control between subjects with normal or abnormal accommodative function, using Jiang's modified control model for steady-state accommodation that incorporate a sensory component.

Methods : 36 graduate students between age of 18 and 30 participated. Based on the standard clinical accommodative testing procedures and diagnostic criterion, the sample was divided into normal accommodation (NA) and abnormal accommodation (AA) groups with 18 subjects in each group. AA group consists of subjects with accommodative insufficiency, access and/or infacility. All accommodative responses (AR) were objectively measured using an open-field autorefractor monocularly. Accommodative stimulus-response function was assessed at 5 different stimulus distances. Baseline tonic accommodation was recorded after 5 min of dark adaptation. Accommodative error (AE) was continuously recorded during a 10 min monocular reading task at 3 diopter distance.

Results : Accommodative stimulus-response function (Fig 1A) and accommodative controller gain (ACG), representing a motor controller, showed no significant difference between groups (NA: 5.8±8.3; AA: 2.5±7.4; p=0.22) (Fig 1B). However, effective threshold to blur (ET), a parameter incorporating accommodative sensory gain (ASG) and depth-of-focus, showed a statistically significant difference (NA: 0.46±0.86; AA: -0.06±0.65; p=0.047) (Fig 1C). A positive association was found between AE and ET (Y=0.62+0.44*X; R2=0.42; p<0.001), but not AE and ACG (Y=0.66+0.02*X; R2=0.05; p=0.167) (Fig 2).

Conclusions : Our results suggest a possible association between abnormal effective threshold to blur with abnormal accommodative response in graduate students with clinically significant accommodative dysfunction. The abnormal sensory gain control might help us to understand the potential mechanism underlying clinical accommodative disorders.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2017 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Baltimore, MD, May 7-11, 2017.

 

Fig 1. Accommodation parameters for normal (NA) and abnormal accommodation (AA) groups: 1A, accommodative stimulus-response function. 1B, accommodative controller gain (ACG). 1C, effective threshold to blur (ET). Error bar represents standard error; * represents statistical significance (p<0.05).

Fig 1. Accommodation parameters for normal (NA) and abnormal accommodation (AA) groups: 1A, accommodative stimulus-response function. 1B, accommodative controller gain (ACG). 1C, effective threshold to blur (ET). Error bar represents standard error; * represents statistical significance (p<0.05).

 

Fig 2. Scatterplot of the correlation between accommodative error (AE) and effective threshold to blur (ET). Linear regression line is plotted as solid line.

Fig 2. Scatterplot of the correlation between accommodative error (AE) and effective threshold to blur (ET). Linear regression line is plotted as solid line.

×
×

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.

×