Comparison of three monocular methods for measuring accommodative stimulus–response curves

REFERENCES

• Johnson CA. Effects of luminance and stimulus distance on accommodation and visual resolution. J Opt Soc Am 1976; 66: 138–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcbrien NA, Millodot M. The effect of refractive error on the accommodative response gradient. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1986; 6: 145–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gwiazda J, Thorn F, Bauer J et al. Myopic children show insufficient accommodative response to blur. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993; 34: 690–694.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbott ML, Schmid KL, Strang NC. Differences in the accommodation stimulus response curves of adult myopes and emmetropes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1998; 18: 13–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeo AC, Kang KK, Tang W. Accommodative stimulus response curve of emmetropes and myopes. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2006; 35: 868–874.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin H, Jiang BC. Accommodative responses under different stimulus conditions. Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 1406–1412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan K, Charman WN. Single figure indices for the steady‐state accommodative response. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1995; 15: 217–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciuffreda KJ, Hokoda SC, Hung GK et al. Accommodative stimulus/response function in human amblyopia. Doc Ophthalmol 1984; 56: 303–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcbrien NA, Millodot M. The relationship between tonic accommodation and refractive error. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1987; 28: 997–1004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seidel D, Gray LS, Heron G. Retinotopic accommodation responses in myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: 1035–1041.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson HA, Glasser A, Stuebing KK et al. Minus lens stimulated accommodative lag as a function of age. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: 685–694.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciuffreda KJ, Rumpf D. Contrast and accommodation in amblyopia. Vision Res 1985; 25: 1445–1457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciuffreda KJ, Hokoda SC. Spatial frequency dependence of accommodative responses in amblyopic eyes. Vision Res 1983; 23: 1585–1594.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duane A. Normal values of the accommodation at all ages. JAMA 1912; 59: 1010–1013.
   Google Scholar
• Rutstein RP, Fuhr PD, Swiatocha J. Comparing the amplitude of accommodation determined objectively and subjectively. Optom Vis Sci 1993; 70: 496–500.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Momeni‐moghaddam H, Wolffsohn JS, Azimi A et al. Effect of target distance on accommodative amplitude measured using the minus lens technique. Clin Exp Optom 2014; 97: 62–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atchison DA, Capper EJ, Mccabe KL. Critical subjective measurement of amplitude of accommodation. Optom Vis Sci 1994; 71: 699–706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenfield M, Cohen AS. Push‐up amplitude of accommodation and target size. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1995; 15: 231–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenfield M, Abraham‐cohen JA. Blur sensitivity in myopes. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76: 303–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Win‐hall DM, Ostrin LA, Kasthurirangan S et al. Objective accommodation measurement with the Grand Seiko and Hartinger coincidence refractometer. Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84: 879–887.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson HA, Hentz G, Glasser A et al. Minus‐lens‐stimulated accommodative amplitude decreases sigmoidally with age: a study of objectively measured accommodative amplitudes from age 3. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49: 2919–2926.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hung GK, Ciuffreda KJ. Dual‐mode behaviour in the human accommodation system. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1988; 8: 327–332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mordi JA, Ciuffreda KJ. Static aspects of accommodation: age and presbyopia. Vision Res 1998; 38: 1643–1653.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winn B, Pugh JR, Gilmartin B et al. The effect of pupil size on static and dynamic measurements of accommodation using an infra‐red optometer. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1989; 9: 277–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutti DO, Jones LA, Moeschberger ML et al. AC/A ratio, age and refractive error in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 2469–2478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Measurement error. BMJ 1996; 313: 744.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasai T, Unno M, Fujii K et al. Dynamic characteristics of human eye accommodation system. Osaka University Technical Report 1971; 21: 569–586.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell FW, Westheimer G. Dynamics of accommodation responses of the human eye. J Physiol 1960; 151: 285–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath GG. The influence of visual acuity on accommodative responses of the eye. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 1956; 33: 513–524.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jiang BC. Integration of a sensory component into the accommodation model reveals differences between emmetropia and late‐onset myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997; 38: 1511–1516.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antona B, Barra F, Barrio A et al. Repeatability intraexaminer and agreement in amplitude of accommodation measurements. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2008; 247: 121–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouse MW, Borsting E, Deland PN. Reliability of binocular vision measurements used in the classification of convergence insufficiency. Optom Vis Sci 2002; 79: 254–264.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenfield M, Cohen AS. Repeatability of clinical measurements of the amplitude of accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1996; 16: 247–249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leon AA, Medrano SM, Rosenfield M. A comparison of the reliability of dynamic retinoscopy and subjective measurements of amplitude of accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2012; 32: 133–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenfield M, Gilmartin B. Accommodative error, adaptation and myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1999; 19: 159–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmid KL, Hilmer KS, Lawrence RA et al. The effect of common reductions in letter size and contrast on accommodation responses in young adult myopes and emmetropes. Optom Vis Sci 2005; 82: 602–611.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zylbermann R, Landau D, Berson D. The influence of study habits on myopia in Jewish teenagers. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 1993; 30: 319–322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenfield M, Gilmartin B. Effect of target proximity on the open‐loop accommodative response. Optom Vis Sci 1990; 67: 74–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenfield M, Ciuffreda KJ, Hung GK. The linearity of proximally induced accommodation and vergence. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991; 32: 2985–2991.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenfield M, Ciuffreda KJ, Ong E et al. Proximally induced accommodation and accommodative adaptation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1990; 31: 1162–1167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruger PB, Pola J. Dioptric and non‐dioptric stimuli for accommodation: target size alone and with blur and chromatic aberration. Vision Res 1987; 27: 555–567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vincent SJ, Collins MJ, Read SA et al. The short‐term accommodation response to aniso‐accommodative stimuli in isometropia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2015; 35: 552–561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan RK, O'leary DJ. Steady‐state accommodation response to different Snellen letter sizes. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1985; 62: 751–754.
   Google Scholar