Accommodative lag under habitual seeing conditions: Comparison between myopic and emmetropic children

Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 189-194

  Nakatsuka, Chiaki ^a   Hasebe, Satoshi ^a,b   Nonaka, Fumitaka ^a   Ohtsuki, Hiroshi ^a  

^a OKAYAMA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b OKAYAMA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Japan)

Author keywords

Accommodation vergence interaction; Lag of accommodation; Myopia; Near point esophoria; Schoolchildren

Indexed keywords

ACCOMMODATION; ARTICLE; BINOCULAR VISION; CALIBRATION; CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIVERGENT STRABISMUS; FEMALE; HABIT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MYOPIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFRACTION ERROR; SPECTACLES;

ACCOMMODATION, OCULAR; CHILD; EYEGLASSES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MYOPIA; OCULAR PHYSIOLOGY; VISION, BINOCULAR;

EID: 21144444947     PISSN: 00215155     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10384-004-0175-7     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Ebenholtz SM. Accommodative hysteresis: a precursor for induced myopia? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1983;24:513-515.
2. Morgan MW. Accommodation and its relation to convergence. Am J Optom Arch Acad Optom 1944;21:183-195.
3. Rouse MW, Hutter RF, Shiftlett R. A normative study of the accommodative lag in elementary school children. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1984;61:693-697.
4. Schor CM. Adaptation of tonic accommodation reduces accommodative lag and is masked in darkness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1986;27:820-827.
5. Gwiazda J, Thorn F, Bauer J, Held R. Myopic children show insufficient accommodation response to blur. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34:690-694.
6. Gwiazda J, Marsh-Tootle WL, Hyman L, Hussein M, Norton TT, COMRT Study Group. Baseline refractive and ocular component measures of children enrolled in the correction of myopia evaluation trial (COMET). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:314-321.
7. Gwiazda J, Hyman L, Hussein M, et al. A randomized clinical trial of progressive addition lenses versus single vision lenses on the progression of myopia in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44:1492-1500.
8. Gwiazda JE, Hyman L, Norton TT, et al. Accommodation and related risk factors associated with myopia progression and their interaction with treatment in COMET children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45:2143-2151.
9. Smith E. Environmentally induced refractive errors in animals. In: Rosenfield M, Gilmartin B. editors. Myopia and near work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1998. p. 57-90.
10. McBrien N, Millodot M. The effect of refractive error on the accommodative response gradient. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1986;6:353-355.
11. Gwiazda J, Bauer J, Thorn F, Held R. A dynamic relation between myopia and blur-driven accommodation in school-aged children. Vision Res 1995;35:1299-1304.
12. Abbott ML, Schmid KL, Strang NC. Difference in the accommodation stimulus response curves of adult myopes and emmetropes. Ophthalmol Physiol Opt 1998;18:13-20.
13. Rosenfield M, Desai R, Portello JK. Do progressing myopes show reduced accommodative response? Optom Vis Sci 2002;79:268-273.
14. Schor C. The influence of interactions between accommodation and convergence on the lag of accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1999;19:134-150.
15. Nakatsuka C, Hasebe S, Nonaka F, Ohtsuki H. Accommodative lag under habitual seeing conditions: comparison between adult myopes and emmetropes. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2003;47:291-298.
16. Hasebe S, Nonaka F, Nakatsuka C, Ohtsuki H. Myopia control trial with progressive addition lenses in Japanese schoolchildren: baseline measures of refraction, accommodation and heterophoria. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2005;49:23-30.
17. Hasebe S, Graf EW, Schor CM. Fatigue reduces tonic accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2001;21:151-160.
18. Atchison DA. Comparison of peripheral refractions determined by different instruments. Optom Vis Sci 2003;80:655-660.
19. Chat SW, Edwards MH. Clinical evaluation of the Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorefractor in children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2001;21:87-100.
20. Marran L, Schor CM. Lens induced anioso-accommodation. Vision Res 1998;38:3601-3619.
21. Rosenfield M, Ciuffreda KJ, Gilmartin B. Factors influencing accommodative adaptation. Optom Vis Sci 1993;69:270-275.
22. Rosenfield M, Meredith FC. Effect of near-vision addition lenses on the accuracy of the accommodative response. Optometry 2001;72:19-24.
23. Tokoro T. Treatment of the myopia and the changes in optical components. Report II. Full or under-correction of myopia by glasses. Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi (Acta Soc Ophthalmol Jpn) 1965;69:140-144.
24. Chung K, Mohidin N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than inhibits myopia progression. Vision Res 2002;42:2555-2559.
25. Goss DA, Rainey BB. Relation of accommodative response and near phoria in a sample of myopia children. Optom Vis Sci 1999;76:292-294.
26. Fulk GW. Is esophoria a factor in slowing of myopia by progressive lenses? Optom Vis Sci 2003;80:198-199.