|
|
Correlation of the Interactions between Accommodation and Vergence in Different Refraction Groups |
Huiling Lin1 Miaomiao Li1, Björn Drobe2 ,Hao Chen1 |
1 Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou 325027, China 2 R&D Optics Asia, Essilor International, Singapore 339346 |
|
|
Abstract Objective: To investigate stimulus and response accommodative convergence to accommodation (AC/A) and stimulus and response convergence accommodation to convergence (CA/C ) ratios between different refractive groups and heterophoria groups. The correlations between the four parameters were also investigated. Methods: In this case control study, 20 emmetropes (EMM) and 27 early-onset myopes (EOM) aged 9 to 14 years participated in this descriptive study from October 2016 to January 2017 at Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University. The accommodative response and phoria through five accommodative stimuli and 6 convergence stimuli levels were measured at 25 cm under binocular viewing conditions with a Grand Seiko WAM-5500 autorefractor and a modified Thorington card. Data were analyzed using t-tests and Pearson correlation analysis. Results: Response AC/A ratios of the EMM and the EOM groups were 4.07±1.47 Δ /D and 5.13±1.95 Δ /D, respectively; the difference between the two groups was significant (t=2.12, P=0.04). A significant linear correlation was found between the stimulus and response AC/A ratios in both the EMM and EOM groups (r=0.903, P<0.001; r=0.880, P<0.001). A negative correlation was found between the response AC/A and CA/C ratios in the EMM group (r=-0.450, P=0.04), while no correlation was found between these two ratios in the EOM group (r=-0.367, P=0.06). Conclusions: EOM has a higher response AC/A ratio compared to EMM. The negative correlation between AC/A and CA/C was only found between the response ratios of EMM, indicating that the AC/A ratio cannot provide a true representation of both cross-link interactions.
|
Received: 04 February 2019
|
Fund: The International S&T Cooperation Program of China (2014DFA30940); Science and Technology Project of Wenzhou (2018Y1063) |
Corresponding Authors:
Hao Chen, Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou 325027, China (Email: chenhao@mail.eye.ac.cn)
|
|
|
|
[1] |
Mutti DO, Mitchell GL, Jones-Jordan LA, et al. The Response AC/A ratio before and after the onset of myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2017, 58(3): 1594-1602. DOI: 10.1167/
|
|
iovs.16-19093.
|
[2] |
Sweeney LE, Seidel D, Day M, et al. Quantifying interactions between accommodation and vergence in a binocularly normal population. Vision Res, 2014, 105: 121-129. DOI: 10.1016/j. visres.2014.10.007.
|
[3] |
张艳龙, 高祥璐, 王琦, 等. 动态检影法下近视患者反应性与刺激性AC/A. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2013, 15(7): 436-438. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2013.07.013.
|
[4] |
徐菁菁, 徐丹, 黄涛, 等. 主观与客观测量人眼调节性集合与调节比率的研究. 中华眼科杂志, 2012, 48(5): 398-402. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0412-4081.2012.05.005.
|
[5] |
Horwood AM, Riddell PM. The clinical near gradient stimulus AC/A ratio correlates better with the response CA/C ratio than with the response AC/A ratio. Strabismus, 2013, 21(2): 140-144. DOI: 10.3109/09273972.2013.786741.
|
[6] |
Grosvenor T. Goss DA. Clinical Management of Myopia. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999.
|
[7] |
Weise KK, Swanson MW, Penix K, et al. King-Devick and Preseason Visual Function in Adolescent Athletes. Optom Vis Sci, 2017, 94(1): 89-95.DOI:10.1097/OPX.0000000000000938.
|
[8] |
Lin HL, Jiang BC. Accommodative responses under different stimulus conditions. Optom Vis Sci, 2013, 90(12): 1406-1412.
|
|
DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000094.
|
[9] |
林惠玲, 吴从霞, 毛欣杰. 不同屈光状态下反应性AC/A值的比较. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2013, 14(12): 718-721. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2012.12.005.
|
[10] |
Mutti CO, Jones LA, Moeschberger ML, et al. AC/A ratio, age, and refractive error in children. Am J Ophthalmol, 2000, 130(5): 690.
|
[11] |
Rosenfield M, Gilmartin B. Assessment of the CA/C ratio in a myopic population. Am J Optom Physiol Opt, 1988, 65(3): 168- 173.
|
[12] |
Rosenfield M, Ciuffreda KJ, Chen HW. Effect of age on the interaction between the AC/A and CA/C ratios. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 1995, 15(5): 451-455.
|
[13] |
Gratton LC, Firth AY. Stimulus and response AC/A ratios in an Orthoptic student population. British Irish Ortho J, 2010, 7: 41- 44.
|
[14] |
Schor CM, Tsuetaki TK. Fatigue of accommodation and vergence modifies their mutual interactions. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 1987, 28(8): 1250-1259.
|
[15] |
Schor CM. A dynamic model of cross-coupling between accommodation and convergence: simulations of step and frequency responses. Optom Vis Sci, 1992, 69(4): 258-269.
|
[16] |
Bharadwaj SR, Candy TR. Accommodative and vergence responses to conflicting blur and disparity stimuli during development. J Vis, 2009, 9(11): 4.1-18. DOI: 10.1167/9.11.4.
|
|
|
|