Next Article in Journal
Accurate Model-Based Point of Gaze Estimation on Mobile Devices
Next Article in Special Issue
Cognitive Demand and Accommodative Microfluctuations
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Optical Coherence Tomography Reveals Sigmoidal Crystalline Lens Changes during Accommodation
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Vision 2018, 2(3), 34;

Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile

Eye and Vision Research Group, School of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK
School of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 4HQ, UK
Ophthalmic Research Group, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 17 July 2018 / Revised: 3 August 2018 / Accepted: 13 August 2018 / Published: 21 August 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Physiological Optics of Accommodation and Presbyopia)
Full-Text   |   PDF [4661 KB, uploaded 21 August 2018]   |  


Objective and subjective methods of assessing time taken for accommodative change (ToAC) include accommodative dynamics (AD) and accommodative facility (AF). This study investigates the validity of novel metrics derived from the AD-profile and explores their relationship with AF. AD were assessed using a modified open-field autorefractor in 43 healthy adults. Non-linear regression curves were fitted to the data to derive: latency-of-accommodation (nLoA) and -disaccomodation (nLoD), Time-for-accommodation (ToA) and -disaccommodation (ToD), and objective-ToAC (oToAC). Latencies were also calculated through visual inspection of the AD data as in previous studies (pLoA and pLoD). AF was used to assess subjective-ToAC. Statistical analysis explored the relationships between the AD-metrics and AF. Subjects were assessed on three visits to examine intra- and inter-observer repeatability. nLoA and nLoD were greater than pLoA (p = 0.001) and pLoD (p = 0.004) respectively. nLoA and nLoD also demonstrated greater intra- and inter-observer repeatability than pLoA and pLoD. AF demonstrated a moderate, inverse correlation with ToA (p = 0.02), ToD (p = 0.007), and oToAC (p = 0.007). ToD was the single best accommodative predictor of AF (p = 0.011). The novel method for deriving latency was more repeatable, but not interchangeable with the techniques used in previous studies. ToD was the most repeatable metric with the greatest association with AF. View Full-Text
Keywords: accommodative dynamics; accommodative facility; auto-refraction; accommodative latency; response times; time for accommodative change accommodative dynamics; accommodative facility; auto-refraction; accommodative latency; response times; time for accommodative change

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Szostek, N.; Buckhurst, H.; Purslow, C.; Drew, T.; Collinson, A.; Buckhurst, P. Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile. Vision 2018, 2, 34.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Vision EISSN 2411-5150 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top