May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Accommodation to a Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • J.P. Kelly
    Ophthalmology, Children's Hospital & Reg. Med Ctr, Seattle, WA
  • E. Seibel
    HIT lab, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA
  • B. Schowengerdt
    HIT lab, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  J.P. Kelly, None; E. Seibel, None; B. Schowengerdt, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  W. O. Rogers Trust and Gift Fund from Intel Corp.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 2802. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      J.P. Kelly, E. Seibel, B. Schowengerdt; Accommodation to a Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):2802.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Abstract: : Purpose: The confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (cSLO) has broad applications for imaging of the non–cyclopleged eye. However, little is known about the accommodative response of the eye while acquiring retinal images, and whether a laser–generated stimulus affects accommodation. Since cSLO stimuli are monochromatic they lack longitudinal chromatic aberration cues for reflex accommodation. Secondly the observer does not have binocular input to the cross–link mechanism for vergence accommodation. Methods: Three emmetropes and, one subject with astigmatism (–0.76, –2.75 x 10), were tested. All had > 3D of accommodation. A prototype compact cSLO (LDT inc) imaged the macula with a 780 nm beam and simultaneously generated targets on the macula with a 645 nm beam. Accommodation was measured under 4 conditions (reading acuity at 20 ft, darkness, while fundus imaging with a blank field (cSLO no image), and fundus imaging while the subject viewed a laser generated "Maltese cross" (cSLO image). Accommodation of the other eye was measured concurrently at 5 Hz using an autorefractor (Welch Allyn). Results: Accommodation to the cSLO was always significantly higher (means 0.6 – 0.9 D) compared to the distance and darkness conditions (t–test; p <0.0001 for all). The cSLO stimulus condition generated slightly less accommodation than the cSLO no image condition. Subjects continued to increase accommodation even when the cSLO was defocused by +1.25 D in order to relax accommodation. The s.d. accommodation amplitude increased slightly while subjects were tested with the cSLO (0.1 – 0.4 D). All subjects had dynamic changes of more than 1 diopter while acquiring static images with the cSLO. However, the velocity of accommodation was estimated to produce error at, or within, typical longitudinal reproducibility for current cSLO instruments. Conclusions: Ocular depth–of–focus, monochromatic stimuli, and proximal cues are potential factors affecting accommodation while viewing a cSLO. Adding a stimulus generated by the cSLO did not greatly improve accommodation. Although accommodation fluctuates considerably, the rate of change in the depth plane during accommodation was estimated to be acceptable.

Keywords: imaging methods (CT, FA, ICG, MRI, OCT, RTA, SLO, ultrasound) • imaging/image analysis: clinical • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: systems/equipment/techniques 

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.