June 2020
Volume 61, Issue 7
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2020
Effect of Dry Eye on Oculomotor Function
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Shuyi (Suzy) Chen
    SUNY College of Optometry, New York, New York, United States
  • Mark Rosenfield
    SUNY College of Optometry, New York, New York, United States
  • Joan K Portello
    SUNY College of Optometry, New York, New York, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Shuyi (Suzy) Chen, None; Mark Rosenfield, None; Joan Portello, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2020, Vol.61, 1731. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Shuyi (Suzy) Chen, Mark Rosenfield, Joan K Portello; Effect of Dry Eye on Oculomotor Function. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2020;61(7):1731.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose : Previous work (Reuff et al.; Optom Vis Sci 2015; 92: 214-221) has reported changes in oculomotor function (primarily differences in accommodation) between dry eye and non-dry eye subjects. However, because the subjects tested were all contact lenses wearers, it is unclear whether the effect was actually caused by the presence of dry eye or the method of refractive correction. Accordingly, the present study evaluated oculomotor function in groups of dry eye subjects who were either habitual contact lens or spectacle wearers.

Methods : Ocular accommodation and vergence were tested in four groups of myopic individuals (each N = 20), namely contact lens and spectacle wearers, with and without dry eye. Habitual contact lens wear was defined as wearing lenses for at least 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Accommodation parameters tested included amplitude, facility and lag, while vergence was assessed by measuring the near point of convergence, horizontal vergence ranges at both distance and near and associated phoria. Additionally, dry eye was quantified using the OSDI questionnaire, tear break-up time, phenol red test and tear meniscus height.

Results : Significant differences in the mean values of accommodative lag (mean difference = 0.28D; p<0.001), monocular (mean difference = 2.4cpm; p=0.004) and binocular accommodative facility (mean difference = 2.4cpm; p=0.005) were observed between the contact lens and spectacle wearers, independent of dry eye status. In all cases, accommodative function was superior in the contact lens group. However, the only significant variation found between the dry eye and non-dry eye groups was for amplitude of accommodation (mean difference = 0.63D; p=0.03). No significant difference was noted between the mean values of the other oculomotor parameters tested.

Conclusions : Previously reported differences in oculomotor function produced by dry eye appear to be a function of contact lens wear, which will reduce the stimulus to accommodation in myopic individuals when compared with spectacle wearers. These results do not support the proposal that the presence of dry eye alters accommodation and/or vergence function.

This is a 2020 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.


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.