Objective:To compare the real-time accommodative response and accommodative microfluctuations during sustained reading/viewing of rapid serial visual presentations (RSVP) and different target presentations.Methods:This was a prospective study. A total of 33 subjects aged from 15 to 28 years were included at Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University from April to October in 2019. The mean age ofthe subjects was 22.1±4.8 years and the mean spherical equivalent was-3.81±1.67 D. Accommodative response and micro?uctuations were measured using the Grand Seiko WAM-5500 auto-refractor while the subject was continuously tested with different targets for 5 minutes. The targets were as follows: RSVP (a rapid serial visual presentation paradigm), Rand-RSVP (a random word rapid serial visual presentation paradigm), Maltese Cross (a target with a Maltese cross) and Windows Text (a window of reading material for 5 minutes). The accommodative response and microfluctuations for different types of visual targets were compared. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the differences in accommodation while reading or viewing the different visual targets. A pairedt-test was used to compare the difference between the initial 10-second measurement and 5-minute accommodative response.Results:While viewing the Maltese Cross, all subjects had a lower mean accommodative response (t=2.45,P=0.016;t=2.57,P=0.011;t=3.85,P<0.001) and a larger accommodative variability (t=4.32,P<0.001;t=1.86,P=0.065;t=2.93,P=0.04).Power spectrum analysis showed that subjects exhibited greater power at low temporal frequencies while viewing the Maltese Cross (t=30.32,P<0.001), and more power at medium and high temporal frequencies when reading the Window Text (t=32.41,P<0.001;t=38.26,P<0.001). Subjects had a higher accommodative response in the ?rst 10 seconds than the averageaccommodative response within 5 minutes when reading/viewing RSVP, random RSVP and Maltese Cross (t=2.30,P=0.028;t=2.45,P=0.020;t=3.71,P=0.001).Conclusions:Different presentation paradigms produce different accommodative responses and micro?uctuations. Accommodative response in the early stage varied after sustained reading/viewing during continuous testing.
乐融融,郑志利,叶慧芳,等. 快速序列视觉呈现方式与其他类型视标实时调节反应的差异 [J]. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2021, 23(11): 845-851.
Rongrong Le, Zhili Zheng, Huifang Ye,et al. Real-Time Accommodative Response and Microfluctuations for RSVP Presentations and Other Targets. Chinese Journal of Optometry Ophthalmology and Visual science, 2021, 23(11): 845-851. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20210220-00067
Day M, Strang NC, Seidel D, et al. Refractive group differences in accommodation microfluctuations with changing accommodation stimulus. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2006, 26(1): 88-96. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2005.00347.x.
[2]
Schaeffel F, Glasser A, Howland HC. Accommodation, refractive error and eye growth in chickens. Vision Res, 1988, 28(5): 639-657. DOI: 10.1016/0042-6989(88)90113-7.
[3]
Gray LS, Winn B, Gilmartin B. Effect of target luminance on microfluctuations of accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 1993, 13(3): 258-265. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.1993.tb00468.x.
[4]
Gilbert, Luther C. Speed of processing visual stimuli and its relation to reading. J Educational Psychol, 1959, 55(1): 8-14. DOI: 10.1037/h0045592.
[5]
Forster K, Ryder L. Perceiving the structure and meaning of sentences. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav, 1971, 10(3): 285- 296. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80056-7.
[6]
Forster K. Visual perception of rapidly presented word sequences of varying complexity. Percept Psychophys, 1970, 8(4): 215-221. DOI: 10.3758/BF03210208.
[7]
Chat SW, Edwards MH. Clinical evaluation of the Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorefractor in children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2001, 21(2): 87-100. DOI: 10.1046/j.1475-1313.2001.00585.x.
[8]
Mallen EA, Wolffsohn JS, Gilmartin B, et al. Clinical evaluation of the Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorefractor in adults. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2001, 21(2): 101-107.
[9]
Mallen EA, Gilmartin B, Wolffsohn JS, et al. Clinical evaluation of the Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorefractor in adults: An update. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2015, 35(6): 622-627. DOI: 10.1111/opo.12254.
Ciuffreda KJ, Kenyon RV. Accommodative vergence and accommodation in normals, amblyopes, and strabismics. In Schor CM, Ciuffreda KJ, Eds. Vergence eye movements: Basic and clinical aspects. Boston: Butterworth, 1983: 101-173.
[12]
Campbell FW, Robson JG, Westheimer G. Fluctuations of accommodation under steady viewing conditions. J Physiol, 1959, 145(3): 579-594. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.1959.sp006164.
[13]
Charman WN, Heron G. Fluctuations in accommodation: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 1988, 8(2): 153-164. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.1988.tb01031.x.
[14]
Harb E, Thorn F, Troilo D. Characteristics of accommodative behavior during sustained reading in emmetropes and myopes. Vision Res, 2006, 46(16): 2581-2592. DOI: 10.1016/ j.visres.2006.02.006.
[15]
Horwood AM, Riddell PM. Differences between naïve and expert observers' vergence and accommodative responses to arange of targets. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2010, 30(2): 152-159. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2009.00706.x.
[16]
Yeo AC, Atchison DA, Schmid KL. Effect of text type on near work-induced contrast adaptation in myopic and emmetropic young adults. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2013, 54(2): 1478- 1483. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.12-11496.
[17]
Radhakrishnan H, Hartwig A, Charman WN, et al. Accommodation response to Chinese and Latin characters in Chinese-illiterate young adults. Clin Exp Optom, 2015, 98(6): 527-534. DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12296.
[18]
Mathews S, Kruger PB. Spatiotemporal transfer function of human accommodation. Vision Res, 1994, 34(15): 1965-1980. DOI: 10.1016/0042-6989(94)90026-4.
[19]
Ciuffreda KJ. Accommodation and its anomalies. In J CronlyDillon, Charman WN, Eds. Vision and visual dysfunction. Houndmills: The Macmillan Press, 1991, 1: 231-279.
[20]
Denieul P. Effects of stimulus vergence on mean accommodation response, microfluctuations of accommodation and optical quality of the human eye. Vision Res, 1982, 22(5): 561-569. DOI: 10.1016/0042-6989(82)90114-6.
[21]
Kotulak JC, Schor CM. A computational model of the error detector of human visual accommodation. Biol Cybern, 1986, 54(3): 189-194. DOI: 10.1007/BF00356857.
[22]
Niyazmand H, Ostadi Moghaddam H, Sedaghat MR, et al. Anterior segment changes following short-term reading and its correlation with corneal biomechanical characteristics. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2013, 33(5): 592-596. DOI: 10.1111/ opo.12041.
[23]
Buehren T, Collins MJ, Carney LG. Near work induced wavefront aberrations in myopia. Vision Res, 2005, 45(10): 1297-1312. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2004.10.026.
[24]
Collins M, Davis B, Wood J. Microfluctuations of steady-state accommodation and the cardiopulmonary system. Vision Res, 1995, 35(17): 2491-2502. DOI: 10.1016/0042-6989(95)00024-0.
[25]
Charman WN, Heron G. Microfluctuations in accommodation: an update on their characteristics and possible role. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2015, 35(5): 476-499. DOI: 10.1111/opo.12234.
Kornrumpf B, Niefind F, Sommer W, et al. Neural correlates of word recognition: a systematic comparison of natural reading and rapid serial visual presentation. J Cogn Neurosci, 2016, 28(9): 1374-1391. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00977
浙公网安备 33030202001892号