Master of Science, The Ohio State University, 2024, Vision Science

Significance This study provides a faster method for objectively measuring accommodative amplitude with an open-field autorefractor and identifies the optimal stimulus locations for eliciting the maximum accommodative response. Purpose Objective measures of accommodative amplitude with an autorefractor take time due to the numerous stimulus demands tested. This study compares three protocols using different amounts and types of demands to shorten the process. This study also aims to determine the optimal accommodative demand or demands that are needed to identify maximum accommodative amplitude in the quickest and most efficient manner. Methods One hundred participants were recruited for four age bins (5-9, 10-14, 15-19, and 20-24 years) and monocular amplitude was measured with an autorefractor using three protocols: 13-demand proximal, 5-demand proximal-lens (letter), and 5-demand proximal-lens (picture). For proximal, measurements were taken as participants viewed a 0.9 mm “E” placed at 13 demands (40 cm to 3.3 cm = 2.5 to 30 D). The other protocols used a target (either the “E” or a detailed picture) placed at 33 and 12.5 cm followed by 12.5 cm with a series of lenses (-2 D, -4 D, and -5.5 D). Accommodative amplitude was defined as the greatest accommodative response measured with each technique. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare group mean amplitudes across protocols and one-way ANOVA was used to compare differences between the letter protocols by age bin. Measurements taken at single demands and groups of demands were also analyzed to determine the demand or combination of demands that correctly identified maximum accommodative amplitude. Results Amplitudes were significantly different between protocols (P<0.001) with the proximal having higher amplitudes (mean ± SD = 8.04 ± 1.70 D) than both proximal-lens protocols (letter: 7.48 ± 1.42 D, picture: 7.43 ± 1.42 D) by post-hoc Tukey analysis. Differences in amplitude between the p (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Heather Anderson O.D., PhD (Advisor); Marjean Kulp O.D., M.S. (Advisor); Donald Mutti O.D., PhD (Committee Member); Ann Morrison O.D., PhD (Committee Member) Subjects: Ophthalmology; Optics