Effect of apparent depth cues on accommodation in a Badal optometer

REFERENCES

• Aldaba M, Otero C, Pujol J et al. Does the Badal optometer stimulate accommodation accurately? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2017; 37: 88–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenfield M, Ciuffreda KJ. Effect of surround propinquity on the open‐loop accommodative response. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991; 32: 142–147.
   PubMed 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
• Jiang BC, Morse SE. Oculomotor functions and late‐onset myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1999; 19: 165–172.
   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
• Mackenzie KJ, Hoffman DM, Watt SJ. Accommodation to multiple‐focal‐plane displays: Implications for improving stereoscopic displays and for accommodation control. J Vis 2010; 10: 22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akeley K, Watt SJ, Girshick AR et al. A stereo display prototype with multiple focal distances. ACM Trans Graph 2004; 23: 804–813.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu X, Hua H. Design and Assessment of a depth‐fused multi‐focal‐plane display prototype. J Disp Technol 2014; 10: 308–316.
   Google Scholar
• Love GD, Hoffman DM, Hands PJW et al. High‐speed switchable lens enables the development of a volumetric stereoscopic display. Opt Express 2009; 17: 15716–15725.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busby A, Ciuffreda KJ. The effect of apparent depth in pictorial images on accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2005; 25: 320–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takeda T, Iida T, Fukui Y. Dynamic eye accommodation evoked by apparent distances. Optom Vis Sci 1990; 67: 450–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takeda T, Hashimoto K, Hiruma N et al. Characteristics of accommodation toward apparent depth. Vision Res 1999; 39: 2087–2097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mather G. Image blur as a pictorial depth cue. Proceedings Biol Sci 1996; 263: 169–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maiello G, Chessa M, Solari F et al. The (in)effectiveness of simulated blur for depth perception in naturalistic images. PLoS One 2015; 10: 1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watt SJ, Akeley K, Ernst MO et al. Focus cues affect perceived depth. J Vis 2005; 5: 834–862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jainta S, Jaschinski W, Hoormann J. Measurement of refractive error and accommodation with the photorefractor PowerRef II. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2004; 24: 520–527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakatsuka C. Accommodative lag under habitual seeing conditions: comparison between adult myopes and emmetropes. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2003; 47: 291–298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day M, Strang NC, Seidel D et al. Refractive group differences in accommodation microfluctuations with changing accommodation stimulus. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2006; 26: 88–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen E, Triantaphillidou S. Manual of Photography. 10th edn. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Elsevier Ltd, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Wang B, Ciuffreda KJ. Depth‐of‐focus of the human eye: Theory and clinical implications. Surv Ophthalmol 2006; 51: 75–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaskulski M, Marín‐franch I, Bernal‐molina P et al. The effect of longitudinal chromatic aberration on the lag of accommodation and depth of field. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2016; 36: 657–663.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strang NC, Day M, Gray LS et al. Accommodation steps, target spatial frequency and refractive error. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011; 31: 444–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wesner MF, Miller RJ. Instrument myopia conceptions, misconceptions and influencing factors. Doc Ophthalmol 1986; 62: 281–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciuffreda KJ, Wang B, Vasudevan B. Conceptual model of human blur perception. Vision Res 2007; 47: 1245–1252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen PM, O'leary DJ. Accommodation functions: co‐dependency and relationship to refractive error. Vision Res 2006; 46: 491–505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harb E, Thorn F, Troilo D. Characteristics of accommodative behavior during sustained reading in emmetropes and myopes. Vision Res 2006; 46: 2581–2592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charman WN, Heron G. Fluctuations in accommodation: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1988; 8: 153–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwig A, Charman WN, Radhakrishnan H. Accommodative response to peripheral stimuli in myopes and emmetropes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011; 31: 91–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmid KL, Strang NC. Differences in the accommodation stimulus response curves of adult myopes and emmetropes: A summary and update. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2015; 35: 613–621.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millodot M. The effect of refractive error on the accommodative response gradient: A summary and update. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2015; 35: 607–612.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolffsohn JS, Hunt OA, Gilmartin B. Continuous measurement of accommodation in human factor applications. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2002; 22: 380–384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orr JB, Seidel D, Day M et al. Is pupil diameter influenced by refractive error? Optom Vis Sci 2015; 92: 834–840.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar