Objective: To investigate differences in accommodative parameters between progressive myopic and emmetropic children, and to determine the potential role of accommodation in myopia. Methods: Thirty?four children with progressive myopia (SE of -0.75 D or more) and 34 children with emmetropia (SE between -0.50 D and 0.50 D) from December 2015 to May 2016 in Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical ·论著·Original Article· 引用本文：陈云云, 丁程璐, 张川川, 等. 进展性近视与正视儿童眼调节功能特征比较. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2019, 21(5): 334-338. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674- 845X.2019.05.003. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志，2019，21（5） Chin J Optom Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2019, 21(5) ·335· University participated in this case control study. Subjective accommodative amplitude (SAA), monocular distance accommodative facility (DAF) and accommodative stimulus-response curves (ASRCs) were measured. An independent samples t test was used to compare differences in accommodation between those two groups. Results: Mean SE was 0.18±0.28 D and -2.88±1.03 D for emmetropes and progressive myopes, respectively (t=-16.72, P<0.001). The SAA of progressive myopes was significantly lower than that for emmetropes (t=-2.22, P=0.03). No differences were found in the DAF, OAA, and ASRC slopes between the two groups (all P>0.05). Progressive myopic children had a larger accommodative lag area and higher accommodative lag at 1 D, 2 D, 3 D, 4 D, 5 D than emmetropes (t=2.40, 2.78, 2.79, 2.49, 2.12, all P<0.05). Accommodative lag at 6 D was slightly higher in progressive myopes, but no significant difference was found (t=1.83, P=0.07). Conclusions: The features of accommodative function in progressive myopic children are not exactly the same as emmetropes. Progressive myopic children have a higher accommodative lag than emmetropes, suggesting that accommodative lag may play a role in myopia.