Subject instructions and methods of target presentation in accommodation research.

PURPOSE The authors investigated the potential of subject instructions to alter the static accommodative stimulus-response function. They also investigated whether the reduced cue environment of the Badal optical system leads to accommodative responses different from those that occur for targets presented in real space. METHODS Static accommodative responses with three focusing instructions were compared to baselines obtained with minimal instruction to stabilize gaze. Static accommodative responses were recorded for targets presented in real space and in a Badal optical system. RESULTS Individuals differ widely in their responses to Instruction 1 (" ... make no special effort ... "), although some adopt a relatively fixed position of focus. Responses with Instruction 2 (" ... look at the words naturally ... ") and Instruction 3 (" ... carefully focus ... ") are not significantly different from each other, but differ slightly from the responses with the baseline instruction ("pick a word in the middle of the block of text and look at it"). In a sample including most subjects, mean responses for Badal and real space targets are identical. However, it appears that some subjects have difficulty accommodating for Badal targets. CONCLUSIONS The authors recommend the use of Instructions 2 and 3 for investigation of the static accommodative response, with a number of provisos. Accommodative responses to Badal and real space targets are generally equivalent, but researchers should take care to identify those persons who have difficulties accommodating for Badal targets.

[1]  Lo J. Bour,et al.  The influence of the spatial distribution of a target on the dynamic response and fluctuations of the accommodation of the human eye , 1981, Vision Research.

[2]  K. Ciuffreda,et al.  Spatial frequency dependence of accommodative responses in amblyopic eyes , 1983, Vision Research.

[3]  H. Schober,et al.  Accommodation During Observations with Optical Instruments , 1970 .

[4]  D. A. Owens A comparison of accommodative responsiveness and contrast sensitivity for sinusoidal gratings , 1980, Vision Research.

[5]  W. N. Charman,et al.  Dependence of accommodation response on the spatial frequency spectrum of the observed object , 1977, Vision Research.

[6]  C. Johnson,et al.  Effects of luminance and stimulus distance on accommodation and visual resolution. , 1976, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[7]  W N Charman,et al.  Accommodation and color. , 1978, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[8]  G. Keppel,et al.  Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook , 1976 .

[9]  P B Kruger,et al.  Infrared recording retinoscope for monitoring accomodation. , 1979, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[10]  M Millodot,et al.  Clinical evaluation of the Canon Autoref R-1. , 1985, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[11]  C. Schor,et al.  Negative feedback control model of proximal convergence and accommodation , 1992, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[12]  P. Ward,et al.  THE EFFECT OF STIMULUS CONTRAST ON THE ACCOMMODATION RESPONSE , 1987, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[13]  W. N. Charman,et al.  Spatial Frequency and the Dynamics of the Accommodation Response , 1979 .

[14]  M J ALLEN,et al.  The stimulus to accommodation. , 1955, American journal of optometry and archives of American Academy of Optometry.

[15]  R. Hennessy,et al.  Instrument myopia. , 1975, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[16]  P B Kruger,et al.  Changing target size is a stimulus for accommodation. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[17]  Leon N. McLin,et al.  Changing size (looming) as a stimulus to accommodation and vergence , 1988, Vision Research.

[18]  R. J. Weber,et al.  The visual accommodation response during concurrent mental activity , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[19]  W. Charman,et al.  EFFECT OF TARGET CONTENT AT HIGHER SPATIAL FREQUENCIES ON THE ACCURACY OF THE ACCOMMODATION RESPONSE , 1987, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[20]  C. Schor,et al.  Voluntary effort as a stimulus to accommodation and vergence. , 1988, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[21]  D A Owens,et al.  The Mandelbaum effect: evidence for an accommodative bias toward intermediate viewing distances. , 1979, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[22]  K J Ciuffreda,et al.  EFFECT OF INSTRUCTION AND HIGHER LEVEL CONTROL ON THE ACCOMMODATIVE RESPONSE SPATIAL FREQUENCY PROFILE , 1985, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[23]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Steady-state and dynamic response properties of the Mandelbaum effect , 1991, Vision Research.

[24]  P. A. Ward,et al.  Effect of pupil size on steady state accommodation , 1985, Vision Research.

[25]  J. Jonides Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye's movement , 1981 .