Premium
The effect of altering spherical aberration on the static accommodative response
Author(s) -
Theagarayan Baskar,
Radhakrishnan Hema,
Allen Peter M.,
Calver Richard I.,
Rae Sheila M.,
O’Leary Daniel J.
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
ophthalmic and physiological optics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.147
H-Index - 66
eISSN - 1475-1313
pISSN - 0275-5408
DOI - 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2008.00610.x
Subject(s) - accommodation , autorefractor , spherical aberration , optics , ophthalmology , stimulus (psychology) , lag , mathematics , pupil size , pupillary response , optometry , pupil , refractive error , lens (geology) , medicine , physics , visual acuity , psychology , computer science , computer network , psychotherapist
Purpose: To investigate the effect of altering the spherical aberration (SA) of the eye on the static accommodative response. Methods: Participants were fitted with nominally afocal contact lenses with controlled amounts of SA of either −0.2, −0.1, 0.0, +0.1 or +0.2 μm for a 5‐mm pupil. Measurements of SA and root mean square (RMS) total aberration for the eye plus lens for each participant were determined with a Complete Ophthalmic Analysis System aberrometer. Accommodation was stimulated either by placing targets at different dioptric distances from the eye, or by using a fixed distance target and placing negative‐powered lenses in front of the eye. Accommodation responses were determined with a Shin‐Nippon autorefractor. Results: For both stimuli situations, the slope of the accommodation stimulus‐response function was lowest for the lenses with +0.2 μm SA, and increased as the amount of SA was reduced. There was a significant negative correlation between SA and slope. Lag of accommodation at 33 cm correlated well with added SA, but did not correlate with total RMS error. There was no significant difference between the responses at 30 min after lens wear started and the responses after 1 h. Conclusions: Adding negative SA to the eye generally improves the slope of the accommodation stimulus‐response curve and decreases lag of accommodation, and positive added SA depresses the slope of the stimulus‐response curve and increases lag. The effect seems to be specific to SA, as there was no relationship between lag and RMS error. Altering SA may be a viable way of changing accommodative functions in clinical situations.