Afficher la notice abrégée

dc.contributor.authorVera Vílchez, Jesús 
dc.contributor.authorRedondo Cabrera, Beatriz 
dc.contributor.authorMartínez-Tovar, José Miguel
dc.contributor.authorMolina Romero, Rubén 
dc.contributor.authorJiménez Rodríguez, Raimundo 
dc.date.accessioned2023-05-24T07:18:49Z
dc.date.available2023-05-24T07:18:49Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.citationVera J, Redondo B, Martínez-Tovar JM, Molina R, Koulieris GA, Allen PM, et al. Effect of manipulating the vergence/accommodation and image size mismatches of the ±2D flipper test on the frequency and precision of accommodative facility. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2023; 00:1–8. [https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.13136]es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10481/81774
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The ±2.00 D accommodative facility test presents several limitations, in- cluding the lack of objective information and inherent characteristics such as ver- gence/accommodative conflict, change in apparent size of the image, subjective criteria for judging blur and motor reaction time. By using free-space viewing con- ditions and an open-field autorefractor to monitor the refractive state, we exam- ined the impact of manipulating these factors on the qualitative and quantitative assessment of accommodative facility. Methods: Twenty-five healthy young adults (24.5 ± 4.5 years) took part in this study. Participants performed three accommodative facility tests (adapted flipper, 4D free-space viewing and 2.5D free-space viewing) under both monocular and binocular conditions in random order. A binocular open-field autorefractor was used to assess the accommodative response continuously, and these data were used to characterise accommodative facility quantitatively and qualitatively. Results: There were statistically significant differences between the three testing methods both quantitatively (p < 0.001) and qualitatively (p = 0.02). For the same accommodative demand, a lower number of cycles was obtained for the adapted flipper condition in comparison with the 4D free-space viewing test (corrected p-value < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.78). However, this comparison did not reach statisti- cal significance for qualitative measures of accommodative facility (corrected p- value = 0.82, Cohen's d 0.05). Conclusions: These data provide evidence that the qualitative assessment of ac- commodative facility is not influenced by the inherent limitations of the ±2.00 D flipper test. The use of qualitative outcomes by incorporating an open-field au- torefractor allows examiners to increase the validity of the accommodative facility test in both clinical and research settings.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherWileyes_ES
dc.rightsAtribución 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subjectAutorefractores_ES
dc.subjectOcular accommodationes_ES
dc.subjectOptometry - Southwest Bakersfield, Li & Liaoes_ES
dc.subjectVisual functiones_ES
dc.titleEffect of manipulating the vergence/accommodation and image size mismatches of the ±2D flipper test on the frequency and precision of accommodative facilityes_ES
dc.typejournal articlees_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsopen accesses_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/opo.13136
dc.type.hasVersionVoRes_ES


Fichier(s) constituant ce document

[PDF]

Ce document figure dans la(les) collection(s) suivante(s)

Afficher la notice abrégée

Atribución 4.0 Internacional
Excepté là où spécifié autrement, la license de ce document est décrite en tant que Atribución 4.0 Internacional