May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Dynamics of convergence–accommodation are amplitude dependent
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • R. Suryakumar
    Optometry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
  • W.R. Bobier
    Optometry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
  • E.L. Irving
    Optometry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  R. Suryakumar, None; W.R. Bobier, None; E.L. Irving, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NSERC, CFI, CRC, PREA
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 1740. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      R. Suryakumar, W.R. Bobier, E.L. Irving; Dynamics of convergence–accommodation are amplitude dependent . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):1740.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: A relationship between peak velocity and response duration as a function of amplitude of movement has been described and quantified for many eye movement systems including vergence and accommodation. However, there is a lack of this main sequence information for accommodation when it is induced through convergence–accommodation (CA). Methods: Disparity driven accommodation was measured in five subjects (26.2 ± 2.68 yrs). A computer monitor set at 1.7m projected a low pass filtered target that was viewed through liquid crystal shutters. Convergence–accommodation responses to vergence demands of 2 to 10 deg were captured by a photorefractor set at 1m. Blur driven accommodation (BA) to negative lenses (range= 1 – 3 D) was measured while subjects viewed a high contrast target set at 1.7m. The amplitude and duration of accommodation were determined from a polynomial curve fit which when differentiated provided peak velocity measures. These 3 values were averaged across subjects. Main sequences for peak velocity and response duration were calculated. The slope of the main sequence was compared between CA and BA. BA responses were truncated to match that of CA. Results: Amplitude–Peak Velocity: Mean slope (p<0.05) and R2 value for CA were 3.56±0.95 D/sec and 0.82 respectively. Mean BA slopes (p<0.05) were higher (7.10±2.64, R2=0.78) but the accommodative response showed significant inter–individual variation for a given amplitude compared to CA. Amplitude–Duration: Mean values of slope and R2 value for CA and BA were 436±202.6 msecs/D, 0.6 and 285.1±156.9 msecs/D, 0.62 respectively. The confidence intervals of the slope for BA and CA completely overlapped. Conclusions: Peak velocity and response duration of disparity driven CA change linearly with response amplitudes suggesting amplitude dependent response dynamics of CA. The response amplitude and peak velocity of BA showed greater inter–subject variation compared to CA

Keywords: vergence • ocular motor control 
×
×

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.

×