Influence of accommodation and refractive status on the peripheral refractive profile

Leon N. Davies, E.A.H. Mallen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

AIM: The aim of the study was to determine, objectively and non-invasively, whether changes in accommodative demand modify differentially the peripheral refraction in emmetropic and myopic human eyes. METHODS: Forty subjects (19 male, 21 female) aged 20-30 years (mean 22.7 (SD 2.8) years), 21 emmetropes (mean spherical equivalent refractive error (MSE) -0.13 (SD 0.29) D) and 19 myopes (MSE -2.95 (SD 1.76) D) participated in the study. Ametropia was corrected with soft contact lenses (etafilcon A, 58% water content). Subjects viewed monocularly a stationary, high contrast (85%) Maltese cross at 0.0, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 D of accommodative demand and at 0, 10, 20 and 30 degrees field angle (nasal and temporal) through a +3.0 D Badal optical system. Static recordings of the accommodation response were obtained for each accommodative level, at each field angle, with an objective, open-view, infrared optometer. RESULTS: Peripheral mean spherical equivalent (M) data showed that the emmetropic cohort exhibited relative myopic shifts into the periphery, while the myopic group showed hypermetropic shifts. Increasing accommodative demand did not alter the peripheral refractive profile in either the temporal (p = 0.25) or nasal (p = 0.07) periphery with no differential accommodative effect between refractive groups in either the temporal (p = 0.77) or nasal (p = 0.73) field. Significant shifts in the J(0) astigmatic component were seen in the temporal (p<0.0005) and nasal (p<0.0005) fields with increasing eccentricity. Interaction effects between eccentricity and accommodative demand illustrated that increasing accommodative demand significantly altered the peripheral refractive profile in the temporal J(0) astigmatic component (p<0.0005). The nasal periphery, however, failed to show such an effect (p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Alterations in peripheral refraction augmented by changes in ocular accommodation are relatively unaffected by refractive error for young, healthy human eyes.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1186-1190
Number of pages5
JournalBritish Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume93
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2009

Fingerprint

Nose
Refractive Errors
Ocular Accommodation
Hydrophilic Contact Lens
Optical Devices
Water

Keywords

  • accommodative demand
  • peripheral refraction
  • emmetropia
  • myopia

Cite this

@article{61ee1b4fd12a407eaf535292a118c110,
title = "Influence of accommodation and refractive status on the peripheral refractive profile",
abstract = "AIM: The aim of the study was to determine, objectively and non-invasively, whether changes in accommodative demand modify differentially the peripheral refraction in emmetropic and myopic human eyes. METHODS: Forty subjects (19 male, 21 female) aged 20-30 years (mean 22.7 (SD 2.8) years), 21 emmetropes (mean spherical equivalent refractive error (MSE) -0.13 (SD 0.29) D) and 19 myopes (MSE -2.95 (SD 1.76) D) participated in the study. Ametropia was corrected with soft contact lenses (etafilcon A, 58{\%} water content). Subjects viewed monocularly a stationary, high contrast (85{\%}) Maltese cross at 0.0, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 D of accommodative demand and at 0, 10, 20 and 30 degrees field angle (nasal and temporal) through a +3.0 D Badal optical system. Static recordings of the accommodation response were obtained for each accommodative level, at each field angle, with an objective, open-view, infrared optometer. RESULTS: Peripheral mean spherical equivalent (M) data showed that the emmetropic cohort exhibited relative myopic shifts into the periphery, while the myopic group showed hypermetropic shifts. Increasing accommodative demand did not alter the peripheral refractive profile in either the temporal (p = 0.25) or nasal (p = 0.07) periphery with no differential accommodative effect between refractive groups in either the temporal (p = 0.77) or nasal (p = 0.73) field. Significant shifts in the J(0) astigmatic component were seen in the temporal (p<0.0005) and nasal (p<0.0005) fields with increasing eccentricity. Interaction effects between eccentricity and accommodative demand illustrated that increasing accommodative demand significantly altered the peripheral refractive profile in the temporal J(0) astigmatic component (p<0.0005). The nasal periphery, however, failed to show such an effect (p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Alterations in peripheral refraction augmented by changes in ocular accommodation are relatively unaffected by refractive error for young, healthy human eyes.",
keywords = "accommodative demand, peripheral refraction, emmetropia, myopia",
author = "Davies, {Leon N.} and E.A.H. Mallen",
year = "2009",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1136/bjo.2009.159053",
language = "English",
volume = "93",
pages = "1186--1190",
journal = "British Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "0007-1161",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "9",

}

Influence of accommodation and refractive status on the peripheral refractive profile. / Davies, Leon N.; Mallen, E.A.H.

In: British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 93, No. 9, 09.2009, p. 1186-1190.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Influence of accommodation and refractive status on the peripheral refractive profile

AU - Davies, Leon N.

AU - Mallen, E.A.H.

PY - 2009/9

Y1 - 2009/9

N2 - AIM: The aim of the study was to determine, objectively and non-invasively, whether changes in accommodative demand modify differentially the peripheral refraction in emmetropic and myopic human eyes. METHODS: Forty subjects (19 male, 21 female) aged 20-30 years (mean 22.7 (SD 2.8) years), 21 emmetropes (mean spherical equivalent refractive error (MSE) -0.13 (SD 0.29) D) and 19 myopes (MSE -2.95 (SD 1.76) D) participated in the study. Ametropia was corrected with soft contact lenses (etafilcon A, 58% water content). Subjects viewed monocularly a stationary, high contrast (85%) Maltese cross at 0.0, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 D of accommodative demand and at 0, 10, 20 and 30 degrees field angle (nasal and temporal) through a +3.0 D Badal optical system. Static recordings of the accommodation response were obtained for each accommodative level, at each field angle, with an objective, open-view, infrared optometer. RESULTS: Peripheral mean spherical equivalent (M) data showed that the emmetropic cohort exhibited relative myopic shifts into the periphery, while the myopic group showed hypermetropic shifts. Increasing accommodative demand did not alter the peripheral refractive profile in either the temporal (p = 0.25) or nasal (p = 0.07) periphery with no differential accommodative effect between refractive groups in either the temporal (p = 0.77) or nasal (p = 0.73) field. Significant shifts in the J(0) astigmatic component were seen in the temporal (p<0.0005) and nasal (p<0.0005) fields with increasing eccentricity. Interaction effects between eccentricity and accommodative demand illustrated that increasing accommodative demand significantly altered the peripheral refractive profile in the temporal J(0) astigmatic component (p<0.0005). The nasal periphery, however, failed to show such an effect (p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Alterations in peripheral refraction augmented by changes in ocular accommodation are relatively unaffected by refractive error for young, healthy human eyes.

AB - AIM: The aim of the study was to determine, objectively and non-invasively, whether changes in accommodative demand modify differentially the peripheral refraction in emmetropic and myopic human eyes. METHODS: Forty subjects (19 male, 21 female) aged 20-30 years (mean 22.7 (SD 2.8) years), 21 emmetropes (mean spherical equivalent refractive error (MSE) -0.13 (SD 0.29) D) and 19 myopes (MSE -2.95 (SD 1.76) D) participated in the study. Ametropia was corrected with soft contact lenses (etafilcon A, 58% water content). Subjects viewed monocularly a stationary, high contrast (85%) Maltese cross at 0.0, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 D of accommodative demand and at 0, 10, 20 and 30 degrees field angle (nasal and temporal) through a +3.0 D Badal optical system. Static recordings of the accommodation response were obtained for each accommodative level, at each field angle, with an objective, open-view, infrared optometer. RESULTS: Peripheral mean spherical equivalent (M) data showed that the emmetropic cohort exhibited relative myopic shifts into the periphery, while the myopic group showed hypermetropic shifts. Increasing accommodative demand did not alter the peripheral refractive profile in either the temporal (p = 0.25) or nasal (p = 0.07) periphery with no differential accommodative effect between refractive groups in either the temporal (p = 0.77) or nasal (p = 0.73) field. Significant shifts in the J(0) astigmatic component were seen in the temporal (p<0.0005) and nasal (p<0.0005) fields with increasing eccentricity. Interaction effects between eccentricity and accommodative demand illustrated that increasing accommodative demand significantly altered the peripheral refractive profile in the temporal J(0) astigmatic component (p<0.0005). The nasal periphery, however, failed to show such an effect (p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Alterations in peripheral refraction augmented by changes in ocular accommodation are relatively unaffected by refractive error for young, healthy human eyes.

KW - accommodative demand

KW - peripheral refraction

KW - emmetropia

KW - myopia

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70249125807&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://bjo.bmj.com/content/93/9/1186.abstract?sid=64da63c1-caee-4e69-af13-c2c7443ed822

U2 - 10.1136/bjo.2009.159053

DO - 10.1136/bjo.2009.159053

M3 - Article

VL - 93

SP - 1186

EP - 1190

JO - British Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - British Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 0007-1161

IS - 9

ER -