Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2023
Effect of manipulating the vergence/accommodation and image size mismatches of the ±2D flipper test on the frequency and precision of accommodative facility.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vera Jesús, Redondo Beatriz, Martínez-Tovar José Miguel, Molina Rubén, Koulieris George A, Allen Peter M, Jiménez Raimundo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The ±2.00 D accommodative facility test presents several limitations, including the lack of objective information and inherent characteristics such as vergence/accommodative conflict, change in apparent size of the image, subjective criteria for judging blur and motor reaction time. By using free-space viewing conditions and an open-field autorefractor to monitor the refractive state, we examined the impact of manipulating these factors on the qualitative and quantitative assessment of accommodative facility.
METHODS: Twenty-five healthy young adults (24.5 ± 4.5 years) took part in this study. Participants performed three accommodative facility tests (adapted flipper, 4D free-space viewing and 2.5D free-space viewing) under both monocular and binocular conditions in random order. A binocular open-field autorefractor was used to assess the accommodative response continuously, and these data were used to characterise accommodative facility quantitatively and qualitatively.
RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between the three testing methods both quantitatively (p < 0.001) and qualitatively (p = 0.02). For the same accommodative demand, a lower number of cycles was obtained for the adapted flipper condition in comparison with the 4D free-space viewing test (corrected p-value < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.78). However, this comparison did not reach statistical significance for qualitative measures of accommodative facility (corrected p-value = 0.82, Cohen's d 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: These data provide evidence that the qualitative assessment of accommodative facility is not influenced by the inherent limitations of the ±2.00 D flipper test. The use of qualitative outcomes by incorporating an open-field autorefractor allows examiners to increase the validity of the accommodative facility test in both clinical and research settings.
METHODS: Twenty-five healthy young adults (24.5 ± 4.5 years) took part in this study. Participants performed three accommodative facility tests (adapted flipper, 4D free-space viewing and 2.5D free-space viewing) under both monocular and binocular conditions in random order. A binocular open-field autorefractor was used to assess the accommodative response continuously, and these data were used to characterise accommodative facility quantitatively and qualitatively.
RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between the three testing methods both quantitatively (p < 0.001) and qualitatively (p = 0.02). For the same accommodative demand, a lower number of cycles was obtained for the adapted flipper condition in comparison with the 4D free-space viewing test (corrected p-value < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.78). However, this comparison did not reach statistical significance for qualitative measures of accommodative facility (corrected p-value = 0.82, Cohen's d 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: These data provide evidence that the qualitative assessment of accommodative facility is not influenced by the inherent limitations of the ±2.00 D flipper test. The use of qualitative outcomes by incorporating an open-field autorefractor allows examiners to increase the validity of the accommodative facility test in both clinical and research settings.