Less is more: optimal recording time for measuring the steady-state accommodative response

Diurnal Variation in Accommodation, Binocular Vergence, and Pupil Size

SIGNIFICANCE

Our results show significant diurnal variations in accommodative function and the magnitude of the phoria. Therefore, when comparing visual measures in clinical or laboratory settings, performing the visual examination at the same time of day (±1 hour) is encouraged.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accommodation, binocular vergence, and pupil behavior on three different times during the day.

METHODS

Twenty collegiate students (22.8 ± 2.1 years) participated in this study. Participants visited the laboratory on three different days at 2-hourly intervals (morning, 9:00 to 11:00 am ; afternoon, 2:00 to 4:00 pm ; evening, 7:00 to 9:00 pm ). The binocular vergence and accommodative function were measured using clinical optometric procedures, and the accommodative response and pupil function were evaluated in binocular conditions using the WAM-5500 autorefractometer.

RESULTS

The accommodative amplitude for the right and left eyes showed statistically significant differences for the time interval ( P = .001 and P = .02, respectively), revealing higher accommodative amplitude in the morning and afternoon in comparison with the evening. Participants were more esophoric when assessed in the morning in comparison with the evening at far and near ( P = .02 and P = .01, respectively) and when assessed in the afternoon in comparison with the evening at far distance ( P = .02). The magnitude of accommodative response was higher in the morning, and it decreased throughout the day at 500 ( P < .001), 40 ( P = .05), and 20 cm ( P < .001). No statistically significant differences were obtained for any other variable.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows small diurnal variations in some accommodative and binocular vergence parameters, but no effects were observed for the pupil response. These outcomes are of special relevance for eye care specialists when performing repeated accommodative or binocular vergence measures. However, the diurnal variations were modest and may not influence a routine orthoptic examination.

Manipulating expectancies in optometry practice: Ocular accommodation and stereoacuity are sensitive to placebo and nocebo effects

INTRODUCTION

There is scientific evidence that an individual's beliefs and/or expectations play a role in the behavioural and physiological response to a given treatment. This study aimed to assess whether the dynamics of the accommodative response and stereoacuity are sensitive to experimentally induced placebo and nocebo effects.

METHODS

Nineteen healthy university students performed three experimental sessions (placebo, nocebo and control) in randomised order, with the dynamics of the accommodative response (magnitude and variability), stereoacuity and subjective measures being assessed in all sessions. For the experimental manipulation, participants ingested an inert capsule that was alleged to have positive (white capsule, placebo condition) or negative (yellow capsule, nocebo conditions) effects on the human physiology. In the control condition, participants did not ingest a capsule.

RESULTS

The data revealed that the variability of accommodation was sensitive to experimentally induced placebo and nocebo effects, showing a more stable accommodative response for the placebo compared with the nocebo condition (corrected p-value = 0.04, Cohen's d = 0.60). In addition, better stereoacuity was found with the placebo, compared with the nocebo (corrected p-value = 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.69) and control (corrected p-value = 0.03, Cohen's d = 0.59) conditions. Successful experimental manipulation was confirmed by the analysis of subjective perceptions.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide evidence that manipulating expectations about the efficacy of an inert treatment affect the dynamics of the accommodative response (variability of accommodation) and stereoacuity. The results have important applications in both clinical and research outcomes, where individuals´ beliefs/expectations could modulate the visual function.

Clinical evaluation of autorefraction and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia in Chinese school-aged children: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The accuracy of open-field autorefractors is important for vision screening, clinical care, and vision research, especially in patients with childhood myopia. TOPCON KR3000 autorefractor was conventional autorefractor and subjective refraction after cycloplegia was gold criteria for assessing the refraction. Results of refractive error in Chinese school-aged children obtained by three methods were evaluated and compared.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted. A total of 89 patients (with a total of 177 eyes) diagnosed as refractive error in the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine from July 2020 to September 2020 were sequentially enrolled in this study. All subjects underwent routine ophthalmic examination to exclude other ocular diseases and had a best corrected visual acuity no less than 0.1 The spherical diopter (SD), spherical equivalence (SE), and astigmatism (J0 and J45) were determined in patients before cycloplegia using two autorefractors, and again after cycloplegia. Subjective refraction results were obtained simultaneously after cycloplegia as gold criteria for comparison. A comparison of data between three methods was performed using paired t-tests and presented graphically using Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

Before cycloplegia, the SD and SE results from WAM were 0.14 D and 0.12 D more positive than the reading from TOPCON (P=0.011 and P=0.021, respectively). The SD measured by WAM and TOPCON was 0.31 D and 0.45 D more negative than the values obtained by subjective refraction after cycloplegia, respectively (P<0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). The SE readings also showed a similar trend (P<0.001, P<0.001). After cycloplegia, the SD and SE measurement obtained with WAM were 0.13 D and 0.12 D more positive than those measured by TOPCON (P<0.001 and P<0.001, respectively), and this was not significantly different to the results obtained using subjective refraction. However, the results of SD, SE, and J0 measured by the TOPCON were significantly different from the results obtained using subjective refraction (P<0.001, P<0.001, and P=0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In clinical application, the measurements obtained with the WAM-5500 autorefractor were more reliable than those of the TOPCON KR3000 autorefractor in patients with or without cycloplegia. The WAM-5500 Autorefractor represents a reliable and valid objective refraction tool for optometric practice.