![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Purpose
To evaluate the differences in accommodative gain in response to different accommodative stimuli and determine the effects of pupil size, binocular viewing, and inherent eye refraction on accommodative gain.
Methods
This study enrolled 47 healthy young adults (emmetropia: 21 eyes, myopia: 26 eyes). Refractive value and pupil size during accommodative stimulus were measured using an open-viewing type auto-refractor (Grand Seiko WAM-5500). The subject was continuously presented with six stimuli (0D, 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, and 5D) in front of the eye. Measurements were performed under three conditions. Condition 1: Monocular status with complete occlusion of the non-viewing eye; Condition 2: Monocular status with occlusion of the non-viewing eye by translucent occluder; Condition 3: Binocular status.
Results
In the emmetropia group, there was no significant difference in accommodative gain between conditions 1 and 2 (p > .05), but conditions 2 and 3 were significantly different (p < .05). In the myopia group, accommodative gain was significantly different between conditions 1 and 2 with stimuli 3D, 4D, and 5D (p < .05), but conditions 2 and 3 were not significantly different (p > .05).
Conclusions
The effects of pupil size and binocular viewing on accommodative gain differed between emmetropia and myopia.
Disclosure statement
The authors report no conflict of interest.