Developing Dynamic Defocus Curve for Evaluating Dynamic Vision Accommodative Function

Overview

Journal BMC Ophthalmol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2022 Mar 6

PMID 35248018

Authors

Tingyi Wu

Yuexin Wang

Shanshan Wei

Yining Guo

Xuemin Li

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: To assess dynamic visual acuity (DVA) under different defocus statuses and explore the assessment of dynamic vision accommodation.

Methods: Twenty subjects (6 males and 14 females) aged 18 to 35 were recruited. Nonmydriatic subjective refraction (sphere and cylinder) and accommodative tests including negative relative accommodation (NRA), positive relative accommodation (PRA), binocular cross cylinder (BCC) and accommodative facility using a flipper were performed. Binocular static visual acuity (SVA) and DVA at 40 degrees per second (dps) were measured under different defocus statuses (+1.5D to -4D in -0.5D steps) based on the refractive error fully corrected. Static and dynamic defocus curves were plotted. The area under the curve (AUC) and corrected dynamic vision accommodation (CDVAc) were calculated.

Results: The study showed that the dynamic defocus curve fitted the cubic curve properly (p<0.001). DVA was significantly worse than SVA at all defocused statuses (p<0.001), and the difference was more significant at greater defocus diopters. Single factor analysis indicated that CDVAc was significantly correlated with NRA-PRA (p=0.012) and AUC (p<0.001). Significant associations were observed between AUC and PRA (p=0.013) as well as NRA-PRA (p=0.021). Meanwhile, DVA was positively correlated with PRA at 0D, -1.0D, -1.5D, -2.5D and -3.0D (p<0.05) and with NRA-PRA at 0D, -1.0D, -1.5D, -2.0D and -2.5D (p<0.05). Multiple factor regression analysis indicated that CDVAc (0D ~ -3.5D) and SVA (+1.5D ~ +1.0D & -2.5D ~ -4.0D) were significant influential factors for defocused DVA (p<0.05).

Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that DVA had a defocus curve similar to that of SVA. CDVAc was feasible for the assessment of dynamic vision accommodative function. The dynamic defocus curve test could efficiently be applied in the evaluation of dynamic visual performance under different defocus statuses.

Citing Articles

The Short- and Long-Term Perceptual Learning of Clinical Dynamic Visual Acuity Test.

Wang X, Yan M, Li J, Wang Y Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2024; 65(12):43.

PMID: 39470471 PMC: 11536199. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.65.12.43.

The impact of corneal higher-order aberrations on dynamic visual acuity post cataract surgery.

Wu T, Wang Y, Li Y, Li Y, Jiang X, Li X Front Neurosci. 2024; 18:1321423.

PMID: 38803687 PMC: 11128552. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2024.1321423.

The impact of different corneal refractive surgeries on binocular dynamic visual acuity.

Wang Y, Guo Y, Li Y, Zhang Y, Yuan Y, Wu T Front Neurosci. 2023; 17:1142339.

PMID: 36937680 PMC: 10022881. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1142339.

Comparison of dynamic defocus curve on cataract patients implanting extended depth of focus and monofocal intraocular lens.

Wu T, Wang Y, Yu J, Ren X, Li Y, Qiu W Eye Vis (Lond). 2023; 10(1):5.

PMID: 36721199 PMC: 9890684. DOI: 10.1186/s40662-022-00323-0.

References

Garcia A, Cacho P, Lara F . Evaluating relative accommodations in general binocular dysfunctions. Optom Vis Sci. 2003; 79(12):779-87. DOI: 10.1097/00006324-200212000-00010. View

Goss D . Clinical accommodation testing. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1992; 3(1):78-82. DOI: 10.1097/00055735-199202000-00011. View

Ao M, Li X, Huang C, Hou Z, Qiu W, Wang W . Significant improvement in dynamic visual acuity after cataract surgery: a promising potential parameter for functional vision. PLoS One. 2014; 9(12):e115812. PMC: 4277412. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115812. View

Zhu X . Temporal integration of visual signals in lens compensation (a review). Exp Eye Res. 2013; 114:69-76. PMC: 3717394. DOI: 10.1016/j.exer.2013.02.014. View

Applegate W, Miller S, Elam J, Freeman J, Wood T, Gettlefinger T . Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation on vision and physical function in elderly patients. JAMA. 1987; 257(8):1064-6. View

Brown B, Baker R, Adams A, Jones R . Effects of benactyzine hydrochloride on dynamic vision functions. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1982; 53(11):1123-8. View

Gupta N, Wolffsohn J, Naroo S . Optimizing measurement of subjective amplitude of accommodation with defocus curves. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34(8):1329-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.04.031. View

Long G, May P . Dynamic visual acuity and contrast sensitivity for static and flickered gratings in a college sample. Optom Vis Sci. 1992; 69(12):915-22. DOI: 10.1097/00006324-199212000-00001. View

Farvardin M, Johari M, Attarzade A, Rahat F, Farvardin R, Farvardin Z . Comparison between bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (Alcon Acrysof IQ® PanOptix) and extended depth of focus lens (Tecnis® Symfony® ZXR00 lens). Int Ophthalmol. 2020; 41(2):567-573. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-020-01608-w. View

10.

Goss D, Zhai H . Clinical and laboratory investigations of the relationship of accommodation and convergence function with refractive error. A literature review. Doc Ophthalmol. 1994; 86(4):349-80. DOI: 10.1007/BF01204595. View

11.

Charman W . The eye in focus: accommodation and presbyopia. Clin Exp Optom. 2008; 91(3):207-25. DOI: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00256.x. View

12.

Geer I, Robertson K . Measurement of central and peripheral dynamic visual acuity thresholds during ocular pursuit of a moving target. Optom Vis Sci. 1993; 70(7):552-60. DOI: 10.1097/00006324-199307000-00006. View

13.

David G, Pedrigi R, Humphrey J . Accommodation of the human lens capsule using a finite element model based on nonlinear regionally anisotropic biomembranes. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2016; 20(3):302-307. DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2016.1228907. View

14.

Ren X, Wang Y, Wang D, Wu B, Wu L, Xu Y . A novel standardized test system to evaluate dynamic visual acuity post trifocal or monofocal intraocular lens implantation: a multicenter study. Eye (Lond). 2020; 34(12):2235-2241. PMC: 7784919. DOI: 10.1038/s41433-020-0780-9. View

15.

Hoshina K, Tagami Y, Mimura O, Edagawa H, Matsubara M, Nakayama T . A study of static, kinetic, and dynamic visual acuity in 102 Japanese professional baseball players. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013; 7:627-32. PMC: 3615904. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S41047. View

16.

Locke L, Somers W . A comparison study of dynamic retinoscopy techniques. Optom Vis Sci. 1989; 66(8):540-4. DOI: 10.1097/00006324-198908000-00009. View

17.

Charman W, Heron G . Fluctuations in accommodation: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1988; 8(2):153-64. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.1988.tb01031.x. View

18.

Iehisa I, Negishi K, Ayaki M, Tsubota K . Kinetic visual acuity is correlated with functional visual acuity at higher speeds. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2019; 4(1):e000383. PMC: 6882549. DOI: 10.1136/bmjophth-2019-000383. View

19.

Langenbucher A, Huber S, Nguyen N, Seitz B, Gusek-Schneider G, Kuchle M . Measurement of accommodation after implantation of an accommodating posterior chamber intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29(4):677-85. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(02)01893-x. View

20.

Aboumourad R, Anderson H . Comparison of Dynamic Retinoscopy and Autorefraction for Measurement of Accommodative Amplitude. Optom Vis Sci. 2019; 96(9):670-677. PMC: 6727979. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001423. View