• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.75-81
• /
• 2012

Purpose: The study tried to figure out accommodative changes by measuring accommodative response, appearing on the full vision correction and low vision correction, with both eyes open-view auto-refractometer (Nvision-K5001, Shin-nippon, Japan). Methods: It carried out objective and subjective refractions, targeting 79 college students (58 males and 21 females) aged between 20 and 30($21.14{\pm}2.00$), by measuring accommodative changes with fixation distance at 1.0 m for eyesight of 1.0 after full version correction. The distances of 5.0 m, 1.0 m, 0.50 m, 0.33 m and 0.25 m for eyesight of 0.8, 0.7 and 0.6 after low vision correction arbitrarily added plus lens were applied. Results: the shorter measure fixation distances were, the greater changes accommodative response showed a tendency in the state of both full vision correction and low vision correction(0.7). The state of full vision correction showed a greater change of accommodative response than that of low vision correction(0.7). Both right and left eyes showed low accommodative responses in the state of low vision correction(0.7) than that of full vision correction. As a result of analyzing accommodative response at an eyesight of 0.8, 0.7, and 0.6 after low vision correction, the poorer eyesight was the lower accommodative response. Conclusions: Low vision correction from a near distance is expected to avoid unnecessary accommodative response, make eyes relaxed and prevent accommodative function disorder.

• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.217-224
• /
• 2014

Purpose: This study was conducted to compare and analyze the accommodative system (accommodative response and accommodative lag) according to the material and font size of near visual media that we often encounter in daily life. Methods: Forty adult men and women aged 20 to 30 who not had specific ocular diseases and refractive surgery experience were examined to measure and compare the accommodative response according to the material of near visual media (print paper, newspaper, magazine, the I-Phone, LCD monitor) and font size (6, 8, 10, 12) by using both eyes open-view auto-refractometer. Results: The accommodative stimulus was $2.28{\pm}0.11D$ and the accommodative response was $1.66{\pm}0.30D$. The accommodative lag namely the difference between accommodative stimulus and accommodative response was $0.62{\pm}0.28D$. The accommodative response according to material of visual media using LCD monitor was $1.35{\pm}0.26D$ (p=0.00) and using the I-Phone was $1.55{\pm}0.25D$ (p=0.04). Both of them were statistically significant lower. The accommodative lag using LCD monitor was $0.93{\pm}0.24D$ (p=0.00) and using the I-Phone was $0.73{\pm}0.25D$ (p=0.04) and they were statistically significant higher. The accommodative response and accommodative lag according to font size were not statistically significant (p>0.05). Conclusions: During near working, the accommodative system was more affected by material than font size of visual media. Especially, visual media of non-luminous material (print paper, newspaper, magazine) are considered fewer burdens on eyes than luminous material (I-Phone, LCD monitor) in terms of accommodative system.

• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.117-124
• /
• 2015

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the accommodative function of young adult in their 20s wearing monovision, modified monovision, and aspheric multifocal contact lenses at near task. Methods: Thirty young adults ($23.53{\pm}2.37years$) were fitted with monovision, modified monovision (the application of single vision contact lenses and center-near low addition aspheric multifocal contact lenses), and aspheric center-near multifocal contact lenses. After wearing these modalities during a week for adaption, and after watching visual display at computer for inducing accommodative pressure for 1 hour. The following assessments of accommodative function were made: contrast visual acuity (VA) at distance and near; accommodative response; near accommodative facility; and negative relative accommodation (NRA)/positive relative accommodation (PRA). All measurements were carried out binocularly. Results: In binocular distance VA with contrast of 10%, monovision was the worst among the four modalities (p=0.005). In accommodative response at 1 m (1.00 D), monovision was the lowest (p<0.05) and accommodative response at 40 cm (2.50 D) with monovision was lower than that of modified monovision and multifocal contact lens (p<0.05). We also found that there were no significant differences in accommodative facility and NRA/PRA among the four modalities. Conclusions: In young adult (20s), monovision with low add reduced the accommodative response at near task, however, modified monovision and multifocal lens with center-near type did not affect accommodative relaxation.

• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.121-125
• /
• 2009

Purpose: This study has been conducted to know the prevalence of anisometropia and corneal refraction, accommodative response of myopic anisometropia. Methods: The study subject were 67 persons who myopic anisometropia of at least 1.00D, from among 808 total subject without ophthalmic diseases history from age 5 to 89 and the test were used to examine with both eyes open-view autorefractometer (NvisionK-5001). Results: The case which anisometropia were 85(10.5%) persons and myopic anisometropia were 67(78.8%) persons among the anisometropia. Difference between higher myopic eye and lower myopic eye were -1.22D${\pm}$0.94 in spherical equivalent, -0.25D${\pm}$0.72 in accommodative response, 0.04D${\pm}$0.68 in corneal refraction. In addition, the same case of both eyes accommodative response were 33(49.3%) persons, the great case of lower myopic eye accommodative response were 25(37.3%) persons and the great case of higher myopic eye accommodative response were 9(13.4%) persons. Conclusions: Myopic anisometropia was not affected by corneal refraction and both eyes difference of spherical equivalent was less as compared with both eyes difference of accommodative response.

• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.79-85
• /
• 2014

Purpose: This study investigated accommodative changes by measuring accommodative response, appearing on the normal and convergence insufficiency Group, by using both eyes open-view auto-refractometer (Nvision-K5001, shin-nippon, Japan). Methods: It carried out objective and subjective refractions, targeting 74 college students (54 males and 20 females) aged between 19 and 29 ($21.59{\pm}2.53$), spherical equivalent OD $-2.28{\pm}2.03$ D, OS $-2.18{\pm}2.01$ D, by measuring accommodative responses at full correction and under correction with plus lens +0.25, +0.50, +0.75 arbitrarily added. Results: In the group of normal and convergence insufficiency, the shorter fixation distances were, the greater accommodative lags showed. The group of convergence insufficiency showed the lesser changes of accommodative response than those of normal. But we found that the convergence insufficiency group had a little larger accommodative amplitude in the total fixation distances. The full correction of convergence insufficiency group and the under correction (+0.50 D) of normal were alike in the accommodative responses. We have also investigated that the correlation between accommodative responses and fixation distances was decreased steeply at the excessive low vision correction. Conclusions: Under correction (+0.50 D) in a near distance is expected to avoid unnecessary accommodative responses, make eyes relaxed and comfortable.

• Journal of Korean Clinical Health Science
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.1616-1624
• /
• 2023

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of changes in tear break-up time, accommodative response amount, and accommodative microwave on the eyes due to changes in humidity. Methods. A total of 48 adult men and women in their 20s (21.1±1.56 years old) were surveyed on dry eye questionnaires (OSID questionnaires), tear destruction time was measured by humidity (40%, 60%, 80%), and controlled reactions and controlled fine waves were measured through tactile tests. Result. As a result of the OSID questionnaire, there were 10 normal patients, 8 mild dry eyes, 1 moderate dry eye, and 5 severe dry eyes. The initial tear film destruction time was 7.34±4.67 seconds at 40% humidity, 8.99±4.75 seconds at 60% humidity, 10.26±4.52 seconds at 80% humidity, and the average tear film destruction time was 9.51±4.07 seconds at 40% humidity, 10.99±3.82 seconds at 60% humidity, and 12.05±3.42 seconds at 80% humidity. The accommodative response was -0.41~1.79D at 40% humidity, -0.34~1.79D at 60% humidity, and -0.30~2.01D at 80% humidity. The accommodative microwave was measured as 56.39~63.43dB when it was 40%, 56.41~62.64dB when it was 60%, and 55.96 ~61.13dB when it was 80%. Conclusion. As the humidity (40~80%) increased, the tear break-up time increased, and as the accommodative stimulus amount increased, the accommodative response amount increased. It was found that the accommodative microwave according to the amount of accommodative stimulation increased, and as the humidity increased, the accommodative microwave decreased.

• 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.

• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.115-119
• /
• 2009

Purpose: This study has been conducted to know the relation among accommodative amplitude, response, and facility. Methods: 61 subjects were students without any ocular diseases and presbyopia in a university, Korea. After far distance visual acuity was fully corrected, the amplitude was measured through Push-Up test, the response was measured through Jackson crossed cylinder ${\pm}$0.25D and the facility was measured through +2.00/ -2.00D flipper. Results: The relation among accommodative facility, response and amplitude had not indicate significant level in monocular and binocular. In binocular, 12 eyes (19.6%) had a difference in amplitude, 9 eyes (14.7%) had a difference in response, 2 eyes (3.2%) had a difference in facility from norm which would be expected from their age. 4 eyes (6.5%) had difference in both amplitude and response. 2 eye (3.2%) had difference in both amplitude and facility. In all three of the amplitude, response, facility had not difference. Conclusions: The evaluation of accommodative functions and a patients accommodative dysfunction is examined all facets of amplitude, response, and facility.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.11 no.9
• /
• pp.3406-3411
• /
• 2010

Assessment of the accommodative response is an essential part of the optometric examination. This study measured objectively the accommodation responses those were measured by Autorefractor, MEM retinoscopy and Nott dynamic retinoscopy, and investigate the correlation and difference the results. Twenty-seven college students with normal visual acuity aged 19 to 29 years (mean $22.7{\pm}2.43$ years) participated in this study. Their accommodative responses to accommodative demand of 4D (25cm) were measured with Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 Autorefractor, MEM retinoscopy and Nott dynamic retinoscopy. The accommodative responses to accommodative demand of 4D were $3.70{\pm}0.25D$ by Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 Autorefractor, $3.58{\pm}0.30D$ by MEM retinoscopy and $3.77{\pm}0.29D$ by Nott dynamic retinoscopy, respectively. There were high correlations among the three techniques (p<0.05). MEM retinoscopy was measured $0.19{\pm}0.13D$ lower than Nott dynamic retinoscopy (p<0.05) and it was measured $0.12{\pm}0.24D$ lower than Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 Autorefractor (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between Nott dynamic retinoscopy and Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 Autorefractor (p>0.05). MEM retinoscopy showed lesser accommodative responses than Nott dynamic retinoscopy and Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 Autorefractor. Author suggest that Nott dynamic retinoscopy may use Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 Autorefractor interchangeably to evaluate accommodative responses expect MEM retinoscopy.

• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.10 no.4
• /
• pp.323-328
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this research was to measurement real Accommodative response amount using both eyes open-view autorefractometer. Compared each Accommodative response amount to distinction of sex, age, kind of ametropia, amount of astigmatism and kind of astigmatism. The subjects were 153 healthy men and women between the age of 20~80 years. Age comparison, 20 years 1.15D, 30 years 1.23D and above 40 years 0.60D. It was no difference between 20 to 30 years old. But, is decrescent remarkably above 40 years old. Ametropia examined by hypermetropia 1.78D, emmetropia 1.51D, low myopia 1.08D, middle myopia 0.72D, high myopia 0.643D. Myopia increased, Accommodative response amount was expose that decrease. Astigmatism examined by non astigmatism 1.13D, low astigmatism 1.12D, middle astigmatism 0.85D, high astigmatism 0.83D. Astigmatism increased, Accommodative response amount was expose that decrease. The sex and astigmatism type difference appeared with the fact that the result is not a difference.