17 research outputs found
Quantifying interactions between accommodation and vergence in a binocularly normal population
AbstractStimulation of the accommodation system results in a response in the vergence system via accommodative vergence cross-link interactions, and stimulation of the vergence system results in an accommodation response via vergence accommodation cross-link interactions. Cross-link interactions are necessary in order to ensure simultaneous responses in the accommodation and vergence systems. The crosslink interactions are represented most comprehensively by the response AC/A (accommodative vergence) and CA/C (vergence accommodation) ratios, although the stimulus AC/A ratio is measured clinically, and the stimulus CA/C ratio is seldom measured in clinical practice. The present study aims to quantify both stimulus and response AC/A and CA/C ratios in a binocularly normal population, and determine the relationship between them. 25 Subjects (mean±SD age 21.0±1.9years) were recruited from the university population. A significant linear relationship was found between the stimulus and response ratios, for both AC/A (r2=0.96, p<0.001) and CA/C ratios (r2=0.40, p<0.05). Good agreement was found between the stimulus and response AC/A ratios (95% CI −0.06 to 0.24MA/D). Stimulus and response CA/C ratios are linearly related. Stimulus CA/C ratios were higher than response ratios at low values, and lower than response ratios at high values (95% CI −0.46 to 0.42D/MA). Agreement between stimulus and response CA/C ratios is poorer than that found for AC/A ratios due to increased variability in vergence responses when viewing the Gaussian blurred target. This study has shown that more work is needed to refine the methodology of CA/C ratio measurement
Recommended from our members
Disparity-driven vs blur-driven models of accommodation and convergence in binocular vision and intermittent strabismus
Background. Current models of concomitant, intermittent strabismus, heterophoria, convergence and accommodation anomalies are either theoretically complex or incomplete. We propose an alternative and more practical way to conceptualize clinical patterns.
Methods. In each of three hypothetical scenarios (normal; high AC/A and low CA/C ratios; low AC/A and high CA/C ratios) there can be a disparity-biased or blur-biased “style”, despite identical ratios. We calculated a disparity bias index (DBI) to reflect these biases. We suggest how clinical patterns fit these scenarios and provide early objective data from small illustrative clinical groups.
Results. Normal adults and children showed disparity bias (adult DBI 0.43 (95%CI 0.50-0.36), child DBI 0.20 (95%CI 0.31-0.07) (p=0.001). Accommodative esotropes showed less disparity-bias (DBI 0.03). In the high AC/A and low CA/C scenario, early presbyopes had mean DBI of 0.17 (95%CI 0.28-0.06), compared to DBI of -0.31 in convergence excess esotropes. In the low AC/A and high CA/C scenario near exotropes had mean DBI of 0.27, while we predict that non-strabismic, non-amblyopic hyperopes with good vision without spectacles will show lower DBIs. Disparity bias ranged between 1.25 and -1.67.
Conclusions. Establishing disparity or blur bias, together with knowing whether convergence to target demand exceeds accommodation or vice versa explains clinical patterns more effectively than AC/A and CA/C ratios alone.
Excessive bias or inflexibility in near-cue use increases risk of clinical problems. We suggest clinicians look carefully at details of accommodation and convergence changes induced by lenses, dissociation and prisms and use these to plan treatment in relation to the model