Fine Sebastian N, Rutkowski Thomas, Santos Elio M, Gohel Suril, Hajebrahimi Farzin, Scheiman Mitchell, Alvarez Tara L
Department of Biomedical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, USA.
Department of Health Informatics, Rutgers University School of Health Professions, Newark, NJ, USA.
J Vis. 2025 Jul 1;25(8):3. doi: 10.1167/jov.25.8.3.
Understanding the interplay of responses to stimulated accommodative blur (B), disparity (D), proximal (P), and diminished blur (-b), disparity (-d), and proximal (-p) cueing within binocularly normal participants is important for comparisons to patient populations. Recordings from 31 participants enrolled in the Convergence Insufficiency Neuro-mechanism Adult Population Study (NCT03593031) were collected. After artifact removal, analyses were performed on 20 BDP, 22 BD(-p), 27 BP(-d), 29 DP(-b), 24 B(-dp), 31 D(-bp), and 29 P(-bd) participant-level response datasets. Group-level statistics were assessed to evaluate the main effect of cue conditions on peak velocity (diopters/second) and final amplitude (diopters). Peak velocity assesses the preprogrammed portion of accommodation, whereas final amplitude assesses the feedback portion of accommodation. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were used to determine cue-to-cue significance. Significant main effects were found for final amplitude and peak velocity metrics (p < 0.05), indicating differences across cue conditions. Responses evoked by blur and disparity were comparable to those responses with all cues (BDP) for both far-to-near and near-to-far transitions. Responses evoked by blur or disparity cues elicited a reduced accommodative response, as indicated by peak velocity and final amplitude, compared to responses from blur and disparity cues. Blur and disparity cues can stimulate accommodative responses through the convergence accommodative/convergence crosslink. Results support significant contributions from blur and disparity cueing to accommodative responses compared with the proximal cue. This research forms the foundation for comparing accommodative responses in individuals with binocular vision dysfunctions.
了解双眼正常参与者对刺激性调节性模糊(B)、视差(D)、近距离(P)以及模糊减少(-b)、视差减少(-d)和近距离减少(-p)线索的反应之间的相互作用,对于与患者群体进行比较很重要。收集了参与集合不足神经机制成人人群研究(NCT03593031)的31名参与者的记录。去除伪迹后,对20个BDP、22个BD(-p)、27个BP(-d)、29个DP(-b)、24个B(-dp)、31个D(-bp)和29个P(-bd)参与者水平的反应数据集进行了分析。评估了组水平统计量,以评估线索条件对峰值速度(屈光度/秒)和最终幅度(屈光度)的主要影响。峰值速度评估调节的预编程部分,而最终幅度评估调节的反馈部分。采用事后成对比较来确定线索间的显著性。在最终幅度和峰值速度指标上发现了显著的主要效应(p < 0.05),表明不同线索条件之间存在差异。对于从远到近和从近到远的转换,模糊和视差引发的反应与所有线索(BDP)引发的反应相当。与模糊和视差线索引发的反应相比,模糊或视差线索引发的反应的峰值速度和最终幅度表明其调节反应有所降低。模糊和视差线索可通过集合性调节/集合交联来刺激调节反应。结果支持与近距离线索相比,模糊和视差线索对调节反应有显著贡献。这项研究为比较双眼视觉功能障碍个体的调节反应奠定了基础。