Purchase this article with an account.
Martin Baumeister, Mark Wendt, Adrian Glasser; Influence of Amplitude, Starting Point, and Age on First- and Second-Order Dynamics of Edinger-Westphal–Stimulated Accommodation in Rhesus Monkeys. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2010;51(10):5378-5390. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.10-5269.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
In humans, accommodative and disaccommodative dynamics depend on response amplitude and starting point. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of amplitude and starting point on open-loop accommodative dynamics in Edinger-Westphal (EW)-stimulated, anesthetized rhesus monkeys of different ages.
One eye each of two younger and two older iridectomized rhesus monkeys, (aged 6.8, 8.9, 15.0, and 16.3 years) were studied. The experiment was repeated in one eye of one younger monkey. Lens thickness changes were recorded by dynamic ultrasound biometry at 100 Hz. Stimuli used produced accommodative responses: (1) starting from baseline with increasing amplitudes; (2) from increasing starting points to maximum accommodation; and (3) from increasing starting points with a constant amplitude of 1 D. The lens thickness measurements were converted into accommodation and velocities and accelerations of the responses were determined by using a two-point difference algorithm.
Maximum accommodative amplitudes ranged from 4.68 to 6.37 D in the older monkeys and 9.33 to 11.59 D in the younger monkeys. The peak velocity of accommodation and disaccommodation increased linearly with response amplitude. Peak velocity and peak acceleration of accommodation and disaccommodation were independent of the response starting point. Subtle variations in disaccommodative response peak velocities were found to vary with age.
The results suggest that, in anesthetized rhesus monkeys, disaccommodative rather than accommodative dynamics may be more sensitive to age-related changes and that, unlike in conscious human subjects, the starting configuration of the accommodative plant has little influence on accommodative dynamics.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only