March 2012
Volume 53, Issue 14
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   March 2012
Validation of Accommodative Responses Measured with the EyeMapper
Ravi C. Bakaraju; Cathleen Fedtke; Klaus Ehrmann; Darrin Falk; Rebecca Weng; Padmaja R. Sankaridurg; Arthur Ho; Brien A. Holden
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Ravi C. Bakaraju
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia
  • Cathleen Fedtke
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia
  • Klaus Ehrmann
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia
  • Darrin Falk
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia
  • Rebecca Weng
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia
  • Padmaja R. Sankaridurg
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia
  • Arthur Ho
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia
  • Brien A. Holden
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Ravi C. Bakaraju, None; Cathleen Fedtke, AU2011902736 (P); Klaus Ehrmann, WO 2008/116270 A1, AU2011902736 (P); Darrin Falk, AU2011902736 (P); Rebecca Weng, None; Padmaja R. Sankaridurg, None; Arthur Ho, WO 2008/116270 A1 (P); Brien A. Holden, WO 2008/116270 A1, AU2011902736 (P)
  • Footnotes
    Support  Funded by the Brien Holden Vision Institute and the Australian Government Cooperative Research Centre Program (Vision CRC).
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science March 2012, Vol.53, 1354. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      User Alerts
      You are adding an alert for:
      Validation of Accommodative Responses Measured with the EyeMapper
      You will receive an email whenever this article is corrected, updated, or cited in the literature. You can manage this and all other alerts in My Account
      The alert will be sent to:
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation
      Citation

      Ravi C. Bakaraju, Cathleen Fedtke, Klaus Ehrmann, Darrin Falk, Rebecca Weng, Padmaja R. Sankaridurg, Arthur Ho, Brien A. Holden; Validation of Accommodative Responses Measured with the EyeMapper. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012;53(14):1354.

      Download citation file:

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

      ×
    • Get Permissions
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : The EyeMapper is an instrument designed to perform fast, global aberrometry. This study compares the central refraction measurements for distance and near obtained with the EyeMapper, a Shin-Nippon NVision K5001 autorefractor (SN, Japan) and a Complete Ophthalmic Analysis System (COAS-HD, Wavefront Sciences, USA) aberrometer with the dynamic stimulation aberrometry (DSA) device (Optana, Germany).

Methods: : Twelve participants, aged 18 to 30 years, with spherical equivalent ranging from plano to -6.00D (mean -1.85D ± 2.29D) and astigmatism <1.00D were enrolled and ametropic eyes were corrected using 1-Day Acuvue Moist soft contact lenses (Johnson & Johnson, USA). Measurements for distance and accommodative demands of 3, 4 and 5D were performed (5 repeats) using the three instruments. Fixation targets were a high contrast back-illuminated modified (8 arms) Maltese Cross, 6/12 and 6/24 Snellen Letter E. While the internal EyeMapper targets were telecentric, target sizes for the SN and COAS were adjusted for their respective distances. The order of testing with the instruments and target presentation was randomized. Only the right eyes were measured with the left eyes occluded during the measurement.

Results: : For distance, the EyeMapper results were significantly more negative (0.60D, p<0.01) compared to SN, but were not different to COAS (p>0.05). Mean refractions obtained with all instruments indicated a lag of accommodation at all near distances. When compared to the EyeMapper and the COAS, SN measurements were significantly more positive (p<0.05) for all near distances (0.58D on average). For distance and an accommodative demand of 3D the EyeMapper results were not significantly different (p>0.05) to those obtained with the COAS, but were more positive for accommodative demands of 4 and 5D (p<0.04). There were no significant differences between the target types for each of the 3 near distances (p>0.55) and this was not dependent on any specific instrument (p>0.46).

Conclusions: : In general, the EyeMapper results were in better agreement to those obtained with the COAS rather than the SN. SN is an open-view autorefractor and this could possibly explain the ‘more positive’ results obtained with this instrument compared to the EyeMapper and the COAS.

Keywords: accommodation • refraction • refractive error development 
© 2012, The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc., all rights reserved. Permission to republish any abstract or part of an abstract in any form must be obtained in writing from the ARVO Office prior to publication.
Copyright © 2025 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.
×
×

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.

×
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy.Accept