Accommodative response under monocular and binocular conditions as a function of phoria in symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects

References

• García A, Cacho P. MEM and Nott dynamic retinoscopy in patients with disorders of vergence and accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2002; 22: 214–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Subbaram MV, Bullimore MA. Visual acuity and the accuracy of the accommodative response. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2002; 22: 312–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson HA, Glasser A, Stuebing KK, Manny RE. Minus lens stimulated accommodative lag as a function of age. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: 685–694.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heron G, Charman WN, Gray LS. Accommodation responses and ageing. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40: 2872–2883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasebe S, Nonaka F, Ohtsuki H. Accuracy of accommodation in heterophoric patients: testing an interaction model in a large clinical sample. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2005; 25: 582–591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goss DA, Rainey BB. Relationship of accommodative response and nearpoint phoria in a sample of myopic children. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76: 292–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tassinari JT. Monocular estimate method retinoscopy: central tendency measures and relationship to refractive status and heterophoria. Optom Vis Sci 2002; 79: 708–714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheiman M, Wick B. Clinical Management of Binocular Vision: Heterophoric, Accommodative and Eye Movement Disorders. 3rd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008. pp 59–64, 121–123.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng D, Schmid KL, Woo GC. The effect of positive‐lens addition and base‐in prism on accommodation accuracy and near horizontal phoria in Chinese myopic children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2008; 28: 225–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chase C, Tosha C, Borsting E, Ridder WH 3rd. Visual discomfort and objective measures of static accommodation. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: 883–889.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosha C, Borsting E, Ridder WH 3rd, Chase C. Accommodation response and visual discomfort. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2009; 29: 625–633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenfield M, Gilmartin B. Effects of target proximity on the open‐loop accommodative response. Optom Vis Sci 1990; 67: 74–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakatsuka C, Hasebe S, Nonaka F, Ohtsuki H. Accommodative lag under habitual seeing conditions: comparison between myopic and emmetropic children. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2005; 49: 189–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu D, Jiang J, Yan J, Lü F, Qu J. Analyze of the accommodative response in myopia anisometropes. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi 2009; 45: 612–615.
   Google Scholar
• Ciuffreda KJ. Accommodation, the pupil and presbyopia. In: Benjamin WJ, ed. Borish's Clinical Refraction. 2nd edn. St. Louis: Butterworth Heinemann Elsevier, 2006. pp 93–144.
   Google Scholar
• Schor C. The influence of interactions between accommodation and convergence on the lag of accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1999; 19: 134–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan MW. The clinical aspects of accommodation and convergence. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 1944; 21: 301–313.
   Google Scholar
• Fry GA. Significance of fused cross cylinder test. Optom Wkly 1940; 31: 16–19.
   Google Scholar
• Sreenivasan V, Irving EL, Bobier WR. Effect of heterophoria type and myopia on accommodative and vergence responses during sustained near activity in children. Vision Res 2012; 57: 9–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouse MW, Borsting EJ, Mitchell GL, Scheiman M, Cotter SA, Cooper J, Kulp MT et al. Convergence Insufficiency Treatment Trial Group. Validity and reliability of the revised convergence insufficiency symptom survey in adults. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2004; 24: 384–390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouse MW, Borsting E, Mitchell GL, Cotter SA, Kulp M, Scheiman M, Barnhardt C et al. Convergence Insufficiency Treatment Trial Investigator Group. Validity of the convergence insufficiency symptom survey: a confirmatory study. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: 357–363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borish IM, Benjamin WJ. Monocular and binocular subjective refraction. In: Benjamin WJ. Ed. Borish's Clinical Refraction. 3rd edn. St. Louis: Butterworth Heinemann Elsevier, 2006. pp 790–872.
   Google Scholar
• Momeni‐moghaddam H, Goss DA, Ehsani M. The relationship between binocular vision symptoms and near point of convergence. Indian J Ophthalmol In press.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rainey BB, Schroeder TL, Goss DA, Grosvenor TP. Reliability of and comparisons among three variations of the alternating cover test. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1998; 18: 430–437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rainey BB, Schroeder TL, Goss DA, Grosvenor TP. Inter‐examiner repeatability of heterophoria tests. Optom Vis Sci 1998; 75: 719–726.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johns HA, Manny RE, Fern K, Hu YS. The intraexaminer and interexaminer repeatability of the alternate cover test using different prism neutralization endpoints. Optom Vis Sci 2004; 81: 939–946.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouse MW, Hutter RF, Shiftlett R. A normative study of the accommodative lag in elementary school children. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1984; 61: 693–697.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carlson NB, Kurtz D. Clinical Procedures for Ocular Examination. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw‐Hill, 2004. pp 197–198.
   Google Scholar
• Locke LC, Somers W. A comparison study of dynamic retinoscopy techniques. Optom Vis Sci 1989; 66: 540–544.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goss DA, Groppel P, Dominguez L. Comparison of MEM retinoscopy and Nott retinoscopy and their interexaminer repeatabilities. J Behav Optom 2005; 16: 149–155.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan MW. Analysis of clinical data. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 1944; 21: 477–491.
   Google Scholar
• Schor CM, Narayan V. Graphical analysis of prism adaptation, convergence accommodation, and accommodative convergence. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1982; 59: 774–784.
   Google Scholar
• Daum KM, Rutstein RP, Houston G 4th, Clore KA, Corliss DA. Evaluation of a new criterion of binocularity. Optom Vis Sci 1989; 66: 218–228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goss DA. Pratt system of clinical analysis of accommodation and convergence. Optom Vis Sci 1989; 66: 805–806.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouse MW, London R, Allen DC. An evaluation of the monocular estimate method of dynamic retinoscopy. Am J Optom Phsyiol Opt 1982; 59: 234–239.
   Google Scholar
• Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial 2 Study Group for the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Accommodative lag by autorefraction and two dynamic retinoscopy methods. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: 233–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacho DP, García‐munoz A, García‐bernabeu JR, López A. Comparison between MEM and Nott dynamic retinoscopy. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76: 650–655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson TW, Goss DA. Variation and correlation of clinical tests of accommodative function in a sample of school‐age children. J Am Optom Assoc 1991; 62: 857–866.
   Google Scholar