• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.55-62
• /
• 2006

Clinical evaluation of the Closed-view autorefractor and Open-view autorefractor was performed to examine validity and repeatability compared with subjective refraction. Measurements of refractive error were performed on 126 eyes of 65 subjects (aged $26{\pm}7.5$ years) subjectively noncycloplegic. Intersession repeatability of the Closed-view and Open-view were also assessed on all 65 subjects together with Intersession repeatability on 7 to 14 days intervals. Spherical powers and spherical equivalent values of subjective refraction and autorefractions by Closed-view and Open-view were analyzed by paired T-test. The mean spherical powers of subjective refraction, Closed-view and Open-view were determined to be $-2.125{\pm}2.155D$, $-2.146{\pm}1.907D$, $-2.117{\pm}2.121D$, respectively. The mean spherical equivalent values of subjective refraction, Closed-view and Open-view were determined to be $-2.362{\pm}2.204D$, $-2.391{\pm}1.967D$, $-2.366{\pm}2.162D$, respectively. The results showed that the refractive errors as measured by the Closed-view and Open-view were found to be similar to the subjective refraction in all components.

• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.403-410
• /
• 2012

Purpose: The purposes of this study are to investigate accommodative response among emmetropes, spectacle wearer and contact lens wearer, and correlation between refractive error and accommodative respons for each group. Methods: The 72 subjects(144 eyes) who do not have any ocular diseases were participate in this study. Subjects were categorized into emmetropes, spectacle wearer and contact lens wearer by refractive error using closed-field auto-refractometer. We measured dominant eye, naked/habitual visual acuity and refractive error of monocular/binocular vision of refractive error for far/near distance with open-field auto-refractometer and calculated accommodative lag. Results: There were no significant difference of accommodative lag between right and left eye dominant and non-dominant eye, monocular and binocular vision, and spectacle lens wearer and contact lens wearer, However the accommodative lag of binocular vision was severe than monocular vision at near. The lag of myopia was larger than emmetropes, and male was larger than female. Significant correlation was found between refractive error and accommodative lag in total subjects and the same result was found in emmetropes and contact lens wearer. However there were no significant correlation in the spectacle wearer. Conclusions: There were significant difference between emmetrops and myopes in terms of accommodative lag, however accommodative lag of spectacle wearer was not different with contact lens wearer in myopes. There were also significant correlation between refractive error and accommodative lag in emmetropes and contact lens wearer, but the accommodative lag of spectacle wearer was not significantly correlated with refractive error.