Effect of Experimental Conditions in the Accommodation Response in Myopia.

Significance: The accommodative response is more affected by the type of refractive error than the method of stimulation, field of view (FOV), or stimulus depth.

Purpose: This study aims to analyze the effect of stimulation method, stimulus depth, and FOV on the accommodation response (AR) for emmetropes (EMM), late-onset myopes (LOM), and early-onset myopes (EOM).

Methods: Monocular AR was measured in 26 young observers (n = 9 EMM, n = 8 LOM, n = 9 EOM) under 60 different viewing conditions that were the result of permuting the following factors: (1) stimulation method (free space or Badal lens viewing), (2) stimulus depth (flat or volumetric), (3) FOV (2.5, 4, 8, 10, and 30°), and (4) accommodative stimulus (AS: 0.17, 2.50, and 5.00 diopters [D]).

Results: Mixed analysis of variance for 2.50 D of AS resulted in a significant effect of refractive group (F = 6.77, P < .01) and FOV (F = 1.26, P = .04). There was also a significant interaction between stimulus depth and FOV (F = 2.73, P = .03) and among stimulation method, FOV, and refractive group (F = 2.42, P = .02). For AS of 5.00 D, there was a significant effect of refractive group (F = 13.88, P < .01) and stimulation method (F = 5.16, P = .03). There was also a significant interaction of stimulation method, stimulus depth, and refractive group (F = 4.08, P = .03). When controlling for all interactions, LOM showed larger lags than EMM and EOM; the AR did not significantly change for fields of 8, 10, and 30°, and it did not significantly differ for different stimulation methods or stimulus depth.

Conclusions: Previously reported differences in AR when using lens-based methods compared with free space viewing may be explained by the effect of other factors such as the FOV or the depth of the stimulus. Targets with an FOV of 8 or 10° may be optimal for accurate ARs.