Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile
Objective and subjective methods of assessing time taken for accommodative change (ToAC) include accommodative dynamics (AD) and accommodative facility (AF). This study investigates the validity of novel metrics derived from the AD-profile and explores their relationship with AF. AD were assessed us...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2018-08-01
|
| Series: | Vision |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.mdpi.com/2411-5150/2/3/34 |
| _version_ | 1819093493803384832 |
|---|---|
| author | Nicola Szostek Hetal Buckhurst Christine Purslow Thomas Drew Avril Collinson Phillip Buckhurst |
| author_facet | Nicola Szostek Hetal Buckhurst Christine Purslow Thomas Drew Avril Collinson Phillip Buckhurst |
| author_sort | Nicola Szostek |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objective and subjective methods of assessing time taken for accommodative change (ToAC) include accommodative dynamics (AD) and accommodative facility (AF). This study investigates the validity of novel metrics derived from the AD-profile and explores their relationship with AF. AD were assessed using a modified open-field autorefractor in 43 healthy adults. Non-linear regression curves were fitted to the data to derive: latency-of-accommodation (nLoA) and -disaccomodation (nLoD), Time-for-accommodation (ToA) and -disaccommodation (ToD), and objective-ToAC (oToAC). Latencies were also calculated through visual inspection of the AD data as in previous studies (pLoA and pLoD). AF was used to assess subjective-ToAC. Statistical analysis explored the relationships between the AD-metrics and AF. Subjects were assessed on three visits to examine intra- and inter-observer repeatability. nLoA and nLoD were greater than pLoA (p = 0.001) and pLoD (p = 0.004) respectively. nLoA and nLoD also demonstrated greater intra- and inter-observer repeatability than pLoA and pLoD. AF demonstrated a moderate, inverse correlation with ToA (p = 0.02), ToD (p = 0.007), and oToAC (p = 0.007). ToD was the single best accommodative predictor of AF (p = 0.011). The novel method for deriving latency was more repeatable, but not interchangeable with the techniques used in previous studies. ToD was the most repeatable metric with the greatest association with AF. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T23:12:24Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1033701a3e97482ca01b5ce04e694dd2 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2411-5150 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T23:12:24Z |
| publishDate | 2018-08-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Vision |
| spelling | doaj.art-1033701a3e97482ca01b5ce04e694dd22022-12-21T18:47:00ZengMDPI AGVision2411-51502018-08-01233410.3390/vision2030034vision2030034Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic ProfileNicola Szostek0Hetal Buckhurst1Christine Purslow2Thomas Drew3Avril Collinson4Phillip Buckhurst5Eye and Vision Research Group, School of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UKEye and Vision Research Group, School of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UKSchool of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 4HQ, UKOphthalmic Research Group, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UKEye and Vision Research Group, School of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UKEye and Vision Research Group, School of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UKObjective and subjective methods of assessing time taken for accommodative change (ToAC) include accommodative dynamics (AD) and accommodative facility (AF). This study investigates the validity of novel metrics derived from the AD-profile and explores their relationship with AF. AD were assessed using a modified open-field autorefractor in 43 healthy adults. Non-linear regression curves were fitted to the data to derive: latency-of-accommodation (nLoA) and -disaccomodation (nLoD), Time-for-accommodation (ToA) and -disaccommodation (ToD), and objective-ToAC (oToAC). Latencies were also calculated through visual inspection of the AD data as in previous studies (pLoA and pLoD). AF was used to assess subjective-ToAC. Statistical analysis explored the relationships between the AD-metrics and AF. Subjects were assessed on three visits to examine intra- and inter-observer repeatability. nLoA and nLoD were greater than pLoA (p = 0.001) and pLoD (p = 0.004) respectively. nLoA and nLoD also demonstrated greater intra- and inter-observer repeatability than pLoA and pLoD. AF demonstrated a moderate, inverse correlation with ToA (p = 0.02), ToD (p = 0.007), and oToAC (p = 0.007). ToD was the single best accommodative predictor of AF (p = 0.011). The novel method for deriving latency was more repeatable, but not interchangeable with the techniques used in previous studies. ToD was the most repeatable metric with the greatest association with AF.http://www.mdpi.com/2411-5150/2/3/34accommodative dynamicsaccommodative facilityauto-refractionaccommodative latencyresponse timestime for accommodative change |
| spellingShingle | Nicola Szostek Hetal Buckhurst Christine Purslow Thomas Drew Avril Collinson Phillip Buckhurst Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile Vision accommodative dynamics accommodative facility auto-refraction accommodative latency response times time for accommodative change |
| title | Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile |
| title_full | Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile |
| title_fullStr | Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile |
| title_full_unstemmed | Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile |
| title_short | Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile |
| title_sort | validation of novel metrics from the accommodative dynamic profile |
| topic | accommodative dynamics accommodative facility auto-refraction accommodative latency response times time for accommodative change |
| url | http://www.mdpi.com/2411-5150/2/3/34 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nicolaszostek validationofnovelmetricsfromtheaccommodativedynamicprofile AT hetalbuckhurst validationofnovelmetricsfromtheaccommodativedynamicprofile AT christinepurslow validationofnovelmetricsfromtheaccommodativedynamicprofile AT thomasdrew validationofnovelmetricsfromtheaccommodativedynamicprofile AT avrilcollinson validationofnovelmetricsfromtheaccommodativedynamicprofile AT phillipbuckhurst validationofnovelmetricsfromtheaccommodativedynamicprofile |