We are writing in response to Dr. Schachar's letter
1 regarding our two recently published studies.
2,3 The issue raised by Dr. Schachar is misleading, as he uses a portion of a figure that was designed primarily to show the results of our contrast agent experiments in the second study
3 and not how we collected measurements; the latter was addressed in the first study.
2
The panels we selected for the figure that Dr. Schachar mentions (left and middle panels of
Fig. 1) were chosen to show the extent of how the triesence particles cling to the vitreous membrane, that the anterior hyaloid bows backward during accommodation, and that the cleft between the pars plicata and the anterior hyaloid decreases with age. The idea that the length of the cornea in the image, and thereby the position of the ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) probe with respect to the eye, could account for the magnitude of the accommodative response or aging change is not correct (see Supplementary Videos S1–S8 of our paper that studies the accommodative movements of the vitreous).
3 The figure portion that Dr. Schachar reproduced in his letter simply shows that, despite some variability of the anterior/posterior position of the UBM probe in relation to the eye, the results were the same. In other words, no matter how short or long the cornea appeared in the image, the data showed that the anterior hyaloid bows backward during accommodation and that with age the cleft between the pars plicata and the anterior hyaloid decreases. Readers can also examine the dynamic videos included with the paper to determine how stable the UBM probe is with respect to the eye during accommodation to make their own determinations. In addition, the video taken using an endoscopic camera (Supplementary Video S4) also demonstrates that the anterior hyaloid bows backward during accommodation.
We demonstrate how the measurements were taken from the UBM images in
Figure 1 of the first (companion) paper
2 and in previous publications.
4–8 For both the monkeys and the human subjects, images were systematically collected, with the anterior/posterior ends of the ciliary body and vitreous zonule oriented in a horizontal direction within all images,
4 and the eyes were imaged at a known level of accommodative amplitude. Thus, with all due respect to Dr. Schachar, we did take baseline measurements of the intraocular structures in the resting eye using known reference points inside the eye (i.e. the distance between known landmarks, such as the scleral spur and the posterior insertion zone of the vitreous zonule) and repeated the measurements in the accommodated eye. The presence of eye movements or small differences in probe position relative to the eye may result in increased variability, but the extent of the noise introduced by eye movements or probe position (if any) is extremely small relative to the magnitude of the accommodative movements, and the data show significant differences between the groups and significant changes with age. Further, eye movements that occur with pharmacologically stimulated accommodation are not systematic but are random in nature. The accommodative responses are the same whether stimulated pharmacologically (humans) or by central electrical stimulation (monkeys).
2
It is very clear that Dr. Schachar and others in the field have deeply held and conflicting views about the basic mechanisms of accommodation and presbyopia, as evidenced not only in his current letter but other letters he has written, as well.
9–14 The assertions by Dr. Schachar have been made before and addressed previously
15–19 and are again addressed in this letter. Dr. Schachar's criticism is basically the same for any publication that reports data that are in disagreement with his unique theory of accommodation and presbyopia.
The current letter written by Dr. Schachar is yet another example of the passionate disagreements that exist in the field regarding the basic mechanism of accommodation and presbyopia. One school of thought posits that it is the capsule that changes the shape of the lens, that the lens diameter decreases during accommodation (Helmholtz),
20 and that the lens hardens with age. Others believe that the vitreous may be involved,
21 whereas Dr. Schachar believes in a mechanism of accommodation opposite to the commonly accepted Helmholtz theory.
22 Our goal was to help understand an unappreciated aspect of the accommodative mechanism and provide a measure of the various accommodative components. Our data may provide insight into the eye's ability to smoothly track objects in the field of view. We are not trying to mediate a fight that exists in the field.
Funded in part by NEI grants R01 EY025359-01A1, RO1 EY10213, R21 EY018370-01A2, and R21 EY018370-01A2S1 to PLK; the Ocular Physiology Research & Education Foundation; the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison NIH base grant #5P51 RR 000167; NIH Core Grant for Vision Research grant #P30 EY016665; Research to Prevent Blindness unrestricted Departmental Challenge Grant (all to PLK); and by project grant “Spitzencluster Medical Valley EMN”, BMBF, Germany, 2012 to EL-D. Funding was also provided by the McPherson Eye Research Institute's Retina Research Foundation Kathryn & Latimer Murfee Chair (Dr. Nork).
Disclosure: M.A. Croft, None; P.L. Kaufman, None