• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.333-339
• /
• 2015

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical characteristics of subjective accommodative lags determined by fused cross-cylinder (subjective method), and an open-field autorefractor (objective method) under uncorrected and corrected conditions. Methods: Thirty three healthy subjects (26 males and 7 females aged $23.73{\pm}1.35$ years from 22 to 27 years) participated. Four methods were used to determine accommodative lag: (1) a subjective method with the fused cross-cylinder (FCC) under +2.00 D fogging lenses condition, (2) an objective method with the autorefractor under uncorrected condition (3) a corrected method (effective accommodative lag) using equations presented by Gwiazda et al. in objective methods, and (4) a corrected method using equations presented by Mutti et al. in objective methods. Results: The mean accommodative lags were 0.72 D for subjective method, 0.82 D for uncorrected objective method, 0.88 D for corrected method with Gwiazda's equations, and 0.78 D for corrected method with Mutti's equations. There were significant differences between the objective accommodative lags, but no significant differences between the objective and subjective accommodative lags. The effective accommodative lags showed significant correlations between phorias and refractive errors. The effective accommodative lag by Mutti's equations had a high correlation with uncorrected accommodative lags (r=0.99, p<0.001). Conclusions: The objective accommodative lag correlated with phorias and refractive errors. Especially, The effective accommodative lag using Mutti's equations may be considered for clinical availability and qualitative evaluation associated with symptoms.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.19 no.8
• /
• pp.353-359
• /
• 2018

In this study, the performance between subjective refraction and open-field/closed view autorefraction was estimated. We measured the refractive error of early adults aged 18 to 20 years who did not have eye disease. The differences between measurements obtained by subjective refraction and open-field autorefraction for SE, J0, and J45 were $-0.13{\pm}0.53D$ (p=0.17), $+0.33{\pm}0.68D$ (p=0.01), and $+0.13{\pm}0.68D$ (p=0.26), respectively, with only J0 differing significantly. The differences between the measurements of subjective refraction and closed-view autorefraction for SE, J0, and J45 were $-0.30{\pm}0.42D$ (p=0.00), $+0.30{\pm}0.71D$ (p=0.02), and $-0.02{\pm}0.63D$ (p=0.88), respectively, with only SE and J0 differing significantly. The coefficient of accuracy for SE, J0, and J45 components of open-field and closed-view autorefraction were 1.04, 1.33, and 1.34 and 0.83, 1.40, and 1.24, respectively. It is possible to predict the refractive error, which is necessary when deciding on subjective refraction, by measuring the objective refraction of open-field/closed view autorefractors.

• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.157-165
• /
• 2015

Purpose: To evaluate changes in central and peripheral refraction along the horizontal visual fields in myopic corneal refractive surgery group compared with emmetropes. Methods: One hundred twenty eyes of 60 subjects ($23.56{\pm}2.54$ years, range: 20 to 29) who underwent myopic refractive surgery and 40 eyes of 20 emmetropes ($22.50{\pm}1.74$ years, range: 20 to 25) were enrolled. The central and peripheral refractions were measured along the horizontal meridianat $5^{\circ}$, $10^{\circ}$, $15^{\circ}$, $20^{\circ}$, $25^{\circ}$ in the nasal and temporal areas using an open-field autorefractor. For analysis of post-op group, the group was classified by pre-op spherical equivalents of < -6.00 D and ${\geq}-6.00D$ as two post-op groups. Results: Pre-op spherical equivalent was $-4.56{\pm}0.92D$ (rang: -2.50 to -5.58 D) in post-op group 1, and $-7.09{\pm}0.96D$ (rang: -6.00 to -9.00 D) in post-op group 2. Spherical equivalent (M) in the emmetropes ranged from $-0.20{\pm}0.22D$ at center to $-0.64{\pm}0.83D$ at $25^{\circ}$ in the temporal visual field and to $-0.20{\pm}0.67D$ at $25^{\circ}$ in the nasal visual field; M in post-op group 1 ranged from $-0.16{\pm}0.29D$ at center to $-5.29{\pm}1.82D$ at $25^{\circ}$ in the temporal visual field and to $-4.48{\pm}1.88D$ at $25^{\circ}$ in the nasal visual field; M in post-op group 2 ranged from $-0.20{\pm}0.32D$ at center to $-7.98{\pm}2.08D$ at $25^{\circ}$ in the temporal visual field and to $-7.90{\pm}2.26D$ at $25^{\circ}$ in the nasal visual field. Among the three groups, there was no significant difference in M at central visual field (p=0.600) and at $5^{\circ}$ in the temporal visual field (p=0.647), whereas, there was significant difference in M at paracentral and peripheral visual field (p=0.000). Conclusions: Emmetropes had relatively constant refractive errors throughout the central and peripheral visual field and showed myopic peripheral defocus along the horizontal visual field. On the other hand, in myopic corneal refractive surgery group, there were significant differences in refractive errors between the central and peripheral visual field compared with differences in the central and peripheral refraction patterns of emmetropes.