Comparison of shifts in ocular accommodation with concurrent variations in cardiovascular function revealed a strong positive correlation between the mean accommodative response and mean heart period (0.0 D stimulus:
r = 0.97,
P < 0.005; −3.0 D stimulus:
r = 0.98,
P < 0.005). A strong positive correlation between mean accommodative response and mean heart period was also present in both EMMs (
r = 0.95,
P < 0.02, for the 0.0 D stimulus;
r = 0.95,
P < 0.02, for the −3.0 D stimulus) and LOMs (
r = 0.90,
P < 0.05, for the 0.0 D stimulus;
r = 0.93,
P < 0.05, for the −3.0 D stimulus;
Fig. 4 ).
Across all subjects, the accommodative shift correlated with the parasympathetic autonomic innervation (HFC: r = 0.96, P < 0.01 for the 0.0 D stimulus; r = 0.95, P < 0.01, for the −3.0 D stimulus). The correlation with the sympathetic response, however, was not as strong (LFC: r = 0.58, P > 0.05 for the 0.0 D stimulus; r = 0.56, P > 0.05, for the −3.0 D stimulus) at both levels of accommodative demand examined.
The correlation between the accommodative shift and autonomic innervation was significant for the parasympathetic (HFC) component at optical infinity viewing, but not the sympathetic (LFC) component in LOMs (LFC, r = 0.62, P > 0.05; HFC, r = 0.99, P < 0.001 for the 0.0 D stimulus; LFC, r = 0.81, P > 0.05; HFC, r = 0.86, P > 0.05 for the −3.0 D stimulus), but neither component of the ANS correlated strongly with the accommodative shift with cognitive demand in the EMMs at both levels of accommodative demand (LFC, r = 0.17, P > 0.05; HFC, r = 0.77, P > 0.05 for the 0.0 D stimulus; LFC, r = 0.00, P > 0.05; HFC, r = 0.69, P > 0.05 for the −3.0 D stimulus).