Longitudinal changes in objective accommodative response, pupil size and spherical aberration: A case study.
accommodation
ageing
presbyopia
pupil
spherical aberration
Journal
Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)
ISSN: 1475-1313
Titre abrégé: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8208839
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2024
Jan 2024
Historique:
revised:
25
10
2023
received:
31
08
2023
accepted:
30
10
2023
pubmed:
15
11
2023
medline:
15
11
2023
entrez:
15
11
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Previous transverse and a handful of longitudinal studies have shown that the slope of the static accommodation response/stimulus curve declines as complete presbyopia is approached. Changes in pupillary miosis and ocular spherical aberration (SA) are also evident. This study further investigated longitudinal changes in the relationships between the monocular static accommodative response, pupil diameter and SA of a single adult. A wavefront analysing system, the Complete Ophthalmic Analysis System, was used in conjunction with a Badal optometer to allow continuous recording of the aberration structure of the dominant eye in a low myope for a range of accommodative demands (-0.83 to 7.63 D) over a period of 17 years until the age of 50. Monocular accommodative response was calculated as the equivalent refraction minimising wavefront error. The associated longitudinal changes in pupil size and SA with accommodation were also recorded. A decrease in accommodation response with age was found at almost all target vergences, with the changes being greatest for higher vergences. In addition, although absolute pupil diameter decreased with age, the rate of change in pupil diameter with accommodative stimulus remained approximately constant with age. Pupil constriction occurred for near stimuli even in full presbyopia. SA changed linearly with the accommodation response at all ages. The objective amplitude of accommodation declined linearly with age as complete presbyopia was approached, while the slope of the response/stimulus curve also fell. It was hypothesised that the retinal image blur associated with the larger lags of accommodation at higher accommodative stimuli was reduced by pupil constriction and the resulting lower levels of SA.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
168-176Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of College of Optometrists.
Références
Duane A. Studies in monocular and binocular accommodation, with their clinical application. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1922;20:132-157.
Hofstetter HW. A longitudinal study of amplitude changes in presbyopia. Optom Vis Sci. 1965;42:3-8.
Weale RA. Why we need reading-glasses before a zimmer-frame. Vision Res. 2000;40:2233-2240.
Win-Hall DM, Glasser A. Objective accommodation measurements in prepresbyopic eyes using an autorefractor and an aberrometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:774-784.
Atchison DA, Charman WN, Woods RL. Subjective depth-of-focus of the eye. Optom Vis Sci. 1997;74:511-520.
Winn B, Whitaker D, Elliott DB, Phillips NJ. Factors affecting light-adapted pupil size in normal human subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35:1132-1137.
Mordi JA, Ciuffreda KJ. Static aspects of accommodation: age and presbyopia. Vision Res. 1998;38:1643-1653.
Ramsdale C, Charman WN. A longitudinal-study of the changes in the static accommodation response. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1989;9:255-263.
Hamasaki D, Ong J, Marg E. The amplitude of accommodation in presbyopia. Optom Vis Sci. 1956;33:3-14.
Kalsi M, Heron G, Charman WN. Changes in the static accommodation response with age. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2001;21:77-84.
Plainis S, Ginis HS, Pallikaris A. The effect of ocular aberrations on steady-state errors of accommodative response. J Vis. 2005;5:466-477.
Charman WN, Tucker J. Dependence of accommodation response on the spatial frequency spectrum of the observed object. Vision Res. 1977;17:129-139.
Seidemann A, Schaeffel F. An evaluation of the lag of accommodation using photorefraction. Vision Res. 2003;43:419-430.
Plainis S, Plevridi E, Pallikaris IG. Comparison of the ocular wavefront aberration between pharmacologically-induced and stimulus-driven accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2009;29:272-280.
Radhakrishnan H, Charman WN. Age-related changes in static accommodation and accommodative miosis. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2007;27:342-352.
Radhakrishnan H, Charman WN. Age-related changes in ocular aberrations with accommodation. J Vis. 2007;7:11.1-21. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.7.11
López-Gil N, Fernández-Sánchez V, Legras R, Montés-Micó R, Lara F, Nguyen-Khoa JL. Accommodation-related changes in monochromatic aberrations of the human eye as a function of age. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:1736-1743.
Atchison DA. Optics of the human eye. 2nd ed. New York: CRC Press; 2023. p. 379-393.
Thibos LN, Hong X, Bradley A, Applegate RA. Accuracy and precision of objective refraction from wavefront aberrations. J Vis. 2004;4:329-351.
Tarrant J, Roorda A, Wildsoet CF. Determining the accommodative response from wavefront aberrations. J Vis. 2010;10:4. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.5.4
Loewenfeld IE. The pupil: anatomy, physiology and clinical applications. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1999.
Schaeffel F, Wilhelm H, Zrenner E. Inter-individual variability in the dynamics of natural accommodation in humans: relation to age and refractive errors. J Physiol. 1993;461:301-320.
Alpern M, Mason GL, Jardinico RE. Vergence and accommodation. V. Pupil size changes associated with changes in accommodative vergence. Am J Ophthalmol. 1961;52:762-767.
Stark L. Presbyopia in light of accommodation. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1988;65:407-416.
Plainis S, Wolffsohn JS. Presbyopia correction: evaluating success using behavioural methods. In: Pallikaris IG, Plainis S, Charman WN, editors. Presbyopia: origins, effects, and treatment. Thorofare, NJ: SLACK Incorporated; 2012. p. 257-265.
Millodot M, Millodot S. Presbyopia correction and the accommodation in reserve. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1989;9:126-132.
Charman WN. The path to presbyopia: straight or crooked? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1989;9:424-430.
MacMillan ES, Elliott DB, Patel B, Cox M. Loss of visual acuity is the main reason why reading addition increases after the age of sixty. Optom Vis Sci. 2001;78:381-385.
Birren JE, Casperson RC, Botwinick J. Age changes in pupil size. J Gerontol. 1950;5:216-221.
Watson AB, Yellott JI. A unified formula for light-adapted pupil size. J Vis. 2012;12:12. https://doi.org/10.1167/12.10.12
Stakenburg M. Accommodation without pupillary constriction. Vision Res. 1991;31:267-273.
Phillips NJ, Winn B, Gilmartin B. Absence of pupil response to blur-driven accommodation. Vision Res. 1992;32:1775-1779.
Cornsweet TN, Crane HD. Training the visual accommodation system. Vision Res. 1973;13:713-715.
Gislén A, Warrant EJ, Dacke M, Kröger RHH. Visual training improves underwater vision in children. Vision Res. 2006;46:3443-3450.
Strenk SA, Semmlow JL, Strenk LM, Munoz P, Gronlund-Jacob J, DeMarco JK. Age-related changes in human ciliary muscle and lens: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:1162-1169.
Croft MA, McDonald JP, Nadkarni NV, Lin TL, Kaufman PL. Age-related changes in centripetal ciliary body movement relative to centripetal lens movement in monkeys. Exp Eye Res. 2009;89:824-832.
Bernal-Molina P, Montés-Micó R, Legras R, López-Gil N. Depth-of-field of the accommodating eye. Optom Vis Sci. 2014;91:1208-1214.
Schäfer WD, Weale RA. The influence of age and retinal illumination on the pupillary near reflex. Vision Res. 1970;10:179-191.
Zapata-Díaz JF, Radhakrishnan H, Charman WN, López-Gil N. Accommodation and age-dependent eye model based on in vivo measurements. J Optom. 2019;12:3-13.