Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2014.19.3.345

Comparison between Stimulus and Response AC/A Ratios for Each Phoria with Additional Spherical Power  

Lee, Se-Hee (Dept. of Optometry and Vision Science, Catholic University of Daegu)
Yu, Dong-Sik (Dept. of Optometry and Vision Science, Kyungwoon University)
Son, Jeong-Sik (Dept. of Optometry and Vision Science, Kyungwoon University)
Kwak, Ho-Weon (Dept. of Optometry and Vision Science, Kyungwoon University)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society / v.19, no.3, 2014 , pp. 345-351 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: The accommodative response and the near horizontal phoria were examined with additional spherical power to analyze the stimulus and response AC/A ratios that suggest reference data for the binocular vision. Methods: The open-field autorefractometer (Nvision-K 5001, Shin nippon) and modified thorington method (MIM card; Muscle Imbalance Measure card, Bernell) at 40 cm were utilized to measure the accommodative response and the near horizontal phoria for 81 persons ($20.89{\pm}1.92$ years old) with additional spherical power. The stimulus and the response AC/A ratios were calculated by gradient AC/A method. Results: The exophoria group showed the highest accommodative response ($1.92{\pm}0.26D$) at 40 cm, followed by orthophoria group and esophoria group($1.72{\pm}0.26D$ and $1.62{\pm}0.42D$, respectively) Meanwhile, the esophoria group showed the biggest ocular deviation for the near ($23.24{\Delta}$) followed by the orthophoria group and exophoria group ($19.76{\Delta}$ and $15.14{\Delta}$, respectively). The biggest difference of the stimulus and the response AC/A ratios was $1.72{\Delta}$ for the exophoria group with -2.00 D, while the one was $3.43{\Delta}$ for the esophoria group with +1.00 D. There was a significant difference between AC/A ratios for the exophoria group with -2.00 D, -1.00 D and the esophoria group with +3.00 D, +2.00D, +1.00D and -1.00D. Conclusions: The difference between stimulus and response AC/A was greater when increased minus spherical power for the exophoria group, while it was greater when increased plus spherical power for the esophoria group. Furthermore, the difference for the esophoria group was a greater than the one for the exophoria group.
Keywords
Accommodative response; Near horizontal phoria; Gradient AC/A method; Stimulus AC/A ratio; Response AC/A ratio;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Sheedy JE, Shaw-McMinn PG. Diagnosing and treating computer-related vision problems, 1st Ed. Burlington: Elsevier Health Sciences. 2003;91.
2 Sheedy JE. Vision problems at video display a survey of optometrists. J Am Optom Assoc. 1992;63(10):687-692.
3 Sung PJ. Optometry, 2nd Ed. Seoul: daihakseolim. 2002; 277:290.
4 Scheiman M, Wick B. Clinical management of binocular vision, 3rd Ed. Philadelphia:Lippincot williams & Wilkins. 2008;4-6.
5 Manas L, Schulman P. The variation in the accommodation- convergence accommodation ratio upon periodic testing. J Optom Arch Amer Acad Optom. 1954;31(8):385-395.   DOI
6 Kim JD, Alexander J, Searbrick H. Accommodative response difference between binocular and monocular viewing for difference refractive error types. Invest Opthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42(4):S2114.
7 Kim HK, Lee KB, Kim CJ, Baek SS, Kim HS, Leem HS, et al. Comparison of accommodative response and response AC/A ratio in emmetropic and myopic children. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc. 2012;14(4):353-362.
8 Rainey BB, Goss DA, Kidwell M, Feng B. Reliability of the response AC/A ratio determined using nearpoint autorefraction and simultaneous heterophoria measurement. Clin Exp Optom. 1998;81(5):185-192.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Mutti DO, Jones LA, Moeschberger ML, Zadnik K. AC/A ratio, age, and refractive error in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(9):2469-2478.
10 Gwiazda J, Grice K, Thorn F. Response AC/A ratios are elevated in myopic children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1999;19(2):173-179.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Rainey BB, Schroeder TL, Goss DA, Grosvenor TP. Inter-examiner repeatability of heterophoria test. Optom Vis Sci. 1988;75(10):719-726.
12 Mitchell S, Bruce W. Clinical management of binocular vision: heterophoric, accommodative, and eye movement disorders, 3rd Ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2008;9-12.
13 Oh TS, Choi HC. Analysis methods of social science data, 1st Ed. Seoul: Nanam. 2010;163-167.
14 Momeni-Moghaddam H, Goss DA, Sobhani M. Accommodative response under monocular and binocular conditions as a function of phoria in symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects. Clin Exp Optom. 2013;97(1):36-42.
15 Kim EH, Berangere GD, VicciVR, Alvarez TL. The relationsihp between phoria and the ratio of convergence peak velocity to divergence peak velocity. Invest Ophthanlmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(8):4017-4027.   DOI
16 Tassinari JT. Monocular estimate method retinoscopy: central tendency easures and relationship to refractive status and heterophoria. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79(11):708-714.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Goss DA, Rainey BB. Relationship of accommodative response and nearpoint phoria in a sample of myopic children. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76(5):292-294.   DOI
18 Seidemann A and Schaeffel F. An evaluation of the lag of accommodation using photorefraction. Vision Research. 2003;43(4):419-430.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Kim JH, Ryu KH, Kim IS. The study on relation between asthenopia of lateral phoria and fusional reserve. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc. 2006;11(4):329-335.   과학기술학회마을
20 Kim DY. Binocular vision, 1st Ed. Seoul: Shinkwang. 2010:326.
21 Park SJ, Kwak HB, Lee SH, Kwak HW. A Study and analysis of accommodative convergence/accommodation ratio by measuring methods. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc. 2013;18(2):117-123.   과학기술학회마을   DOI