Win-Hall Dorothy M, Houser Jamie, Glasser Adrian
College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204-2020, USA.
Optom Vis Sci. 2010 Nov;87(11):873-82. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181f6f98f.
This study was undertaken to compare static and dynamic accommodation measurements using the Grand Seiko WR-5500 (WAM) in young, phakic subjects.
Fifteen subjects, aged 20 to 28 years (23.8 ± 0.58 years; mean ± SD years) participated. Accommodation was stimulated with printed text presented at various distances. In static mode, three measurements were taken for each stimulus amplitude. In dynamic mode, 5-Hz recordings were started, and subjects alternately looked through a transparent near chart and focused on a letter chart at 6 m for 5 seconds and then focused on the near letter chart for 5 seconds for a total of 30 seconds. After smoothing the raw data, the highest three individual values recorded in each 5-s interval of focusing at near were averaged for each stimulus amplitude. Analysis of variance and Bland-Altman analysis were used to compare the static and dynamic measurements. A calibration was performed with +3.00 to -10.00 D trial lenses behind an infrared filter, in 1.00 D steps in 5 of the 15 subjects.
Stimulus-response graphs from static and dynamic modes were not significantly different in the lower stimulus range (<5.00 D, p = 0.93), but differed significantly for the higher stimulus amplitudes (p = 0.0027). One of the 15 subjects showed a significant difference between the static and dynamic modes. Corresponding pupil diameter could be recorded along with the accommodation responses for the subjects, and pupil diameter decreased with increasing stimulus demand. Calibration curves for static and dynamic measurements were not significantly different from the 1:1 line or from each other (p = 0.32).
Slight differences between the dynamically and statically recorded response amplitudes were identified. This is attributed to differences in the accommodative responses in this population and not to the instrument performance. Dynamic measurement of accommodation and pupil constriction potentially provides additional useful information on the accommodative response other than simply the response amplitude.
本研究旨在比较使用精工WR - 5500(WAM)对年轻有晶状体受试者进行静态和动态调节测量的结果。
15名年龄在20至28岁(23.8±0.58岁;均值±标准差)的受试者参与了研究。通过呈现不同距离的印刷文本刺激调节。在静态模式下,对每个刺激幅度进行三次测量。在动态模式下,开始以5赫兹的频率记录,受试者交替透过透明近视力表观察,并在6米处聚焦字母表5秒,然后聚焦近视力表5秒,共30秒。对原始数据进行平滑处理后,对每个刺激幅度,将在每个5秒近聚焦间隔内记录的最高三个个体值进行平均。采用方差分析和布兰德 - 奥特曼分析来比较静态和动态测量结果。在15名受试者中的5名受试者中,使用+3.00至 - 10.00 D的试验镜片在红外滤光片后以1.00 D步长进行校准。
在较低刺激范围(<5.00 D,p = 0.93)内,静态和动态模式的刺激 - 反应图无显著差异,但在较高刺激幅度下差异显著(p = 0.0027)。15名受试者中有1名在静态和动态模式之间表现出显著差异。可以记录受试者的相应瞳孔直径以及调节反应,瞳孔直径随刺激需求增加而减小。静态和动态测量的校准曲线与1:1线以及彼此之间均无显著差异(p = 0.32)。
确定了动态和静态记录的反应幅度之间存在细微差异。这归因于该人群调节反应的差异,而非仪器性能。调节和瞳孔收缩的动态测量除了反应幅度外,还可能提供有关调节反应的其他有用信息。