Differences in the Stimulus Accommodative Convergence/Accommodation Ratio using Various Techniques and Accommodative Stimuli

Abstract

ABSTRACTPurpose: To investigate differences in the stimulus accommodative convergence/accommodation (AC/A) ratio using various techniques and accommodative stimuli, and to describe a method for determining the stimulus AC/A ratio.Methods: A total of 81 subjects with a mean age of 21 years (range, 20–23 years) were enrolled. The relationship between ocular deviation and accommodation was assessed using two methods. Ocular deviation was measured by varying the accommodative requirement using spherical plus/minus lenses to create an accommodative stimulus of 10.00 diopters (D) (in 1.00 D steps). Ocular deviation was assessed using the alternate prism cover test in method 1 at distance (5 m) and near (1/3 m), and the major amblyoscope in method 2. The stimulus AC/A ratios obtained using methods 1 and 2 were calculated and defined as the stimulus AC/A ratios with low and high accommodation, respectively, using the following analysis method. The former was calculated as the difference between the convergence response to an accommodative stimulus of 3 D and 0 D, divided by 3. The latter was calculated as the difference between the convergence response to a maximum (max) accommodative stimulus with distinct vision of the subject and an accommodative stimulus of max minus 3.00 D, divided by 3.Results: The median stimulus AC/A ratio with low accommodation (1.0 Δ/D for method 1 at distance, 2.0 Δ/D for method 1 at near, and 2.7 Δ/D for method 2) differed significantly among the measurement methods (P < 0.01). Differences in the median stimulus AC/A ratio with high accommodation (4.0 Δ/D for method 1 at distance, 3.7 Δ/D for method 1 at near, and 4.7 Δ/D for method 2) between method 1 at distance and method 2 were statistically significant (P < 0.05), while method 1 at near was not significantly different compared with other methods.Conclusions: Differences in the stimulus AC/A ratio value were significant according to measurement technique and accommodative stimuli. However, differences caused by measurement technique may be reduced by using a high accommodative stimulus during measurements.