April 2010
Volume 51, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2010
The Accommodative Response Under Lens-Imposed Anisometropia in Humans
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • A. Benavente-Perez
    Biological Sciences, SUNY College of Optometry, New York, New York
  • A. Nour
    Biological Sciences, SUNY College of Optometry, New York, New York
  • D. Troilo
    Biological Sciences, SUNY College of Optometry, New York, New York
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  A. Benavente-Perez, None; A. Nour, None; D. Troilo, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH EY011228
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2010, Vol.51, 3932. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      A. Benavente-Perez, A. Nour, D. Troilo; The Accommodative Response Under Lens-Imposed Anisometropia in Humans. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2010;51(13):3932.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: : Imposing anisometropic defocus with lenses results in compensatory changes in eye growth and refractive state in several animal models. A recent study of monovision in human myopes is consistent with these studies in showing that the eye with more imposed myopia had reduced myopia progression (Phillips, 2005). This study examines the accommodative response through imposed anisometropia (IA) to understand the retinal defocus experienced under such conditions and how it may influence ocular growth.

Methods: : Accommodation to several near target distances was evaluated in 11 subjects (8 emmetropes, 3 myopes) aged 22 to 32 yrs (26.1±3.4) using an infrared video photorefractor (Power Refractor, MultiChannels System). During measurements, lenses of opposite power (±1D and ±1.5D) were worn (for myopes, over their habitual correction) to impose either 2 or 3 D of anisometropia.

Results: : For 2D IA, the eye wearing the positive lens (effectively more myopic) was always better focused (mean lag -0.04±0.24 D); the effectively more hyperopic eye always had larger lags (-3.98±0.29 D). Under 3D IA, two strategies were adopted: (1) five subjects were better focused with the effectively more myopic eye and showed large lags with the effectively more hyperopic eye; (2) six subjects appeared to average the accommodative response between eyes so that the effectively more myopic eye showed a significant accommodative lead (+0.94±0.28 D) while the contralateral more hyperopic eye lagged (-2.02±0.13 D). The interocular difference in effective refraction was occasionally less than the IA suggesting that brief periods of aniso-accommodation may also be taking place. Subject refractive state and eye dominance were unrelated to any of the responses observed.

Conclusions: : Under anisometropia of the type experienced during monovision, our results in young, accommodating subjects suggest that the relatively more hyperopic eye remains effectively hyperopic but the relatively more myopic eye may or may not experience myopic defocus during near vision. If the efficacy of monovision for myopia control in children depends on the presence of myopic defocus, it will be affected by the type of accommodative behavior exhibited in response to the anisometropic accommodative demands as demonstrated in this study.

Keywords: accommodation • refractive error development • myopia 

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.