We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Does the Badal optometer stimulate accommodation accurately?
Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics : the Journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) 2017 January
PURPOSE: To study whether the accommodation response to Badal optometer is equivalent to the response for real space targets.
METHODS: Accommodative responses were measured for 28 young eyes with the WAM-5500 autorefractometer in eight configurations for 0.17 D, 2.0 D and 5.0 D accommodation stimuli. Parameters that might contribute to differences in response were systematically isolated: stimulation method (real space vs Badal targets), field of view, instrument's cover proximity, the looming effect, and the peripheral interposition of objects in depth.
RESULTS: Mean accommodative response differences between a natural view configuration and a configuration with a Badal Optometer were 0.50 ± 0.43 D and 0.58 ± 0.53 D for 2.0 D and 5.0 D stimulation, respectively (p < 0.001), with accommodation lags for the latter condition. Of the isolated parameters that might contribute to these differences, varying the interposition of objects in depth affected accommodation response more markedly.
CONCLUSIONS: It is likely that Badal optometers affect accommodation through a combination of some or all of the studied parameters. We conclude that accommodation response to closed-view Badal optometers is not equivalent to real space target response.
METHODS: Accommodative responses were measured for 28 young eyes with the WAM-5500 autorefractometer in eight configurations for 0.17 D, 2.0 D and 5.0 D accommodation stimuli. Parameters that might contribute to differences in response were systematically isolated: stimulation method (real space vs Badal targets), field of view, instrument's cover proximity, the looming effect, and the peripheral interposition of objects in depth.
RESULTS: Mean accommodative response differences between a natural view configuration and a configuration with a Badal Optometer were 0.50 ± 0.43 D and 0.58 ± 0.53 D for 2.0 D and 5.0 D stimulation, respectively (p < 0.001), with accommodation lags for the latter condition. Of the isolated parameters that might contribute to these differences, varying the interposition of objects in depth affected accommodation response more markedly.
CONCLUSIONS: It is likely that Badal optometers affect accommodation through a combination of some or all of the studied parameters. We conclude that accommodation response to closed-view Badal optometers is not equivalent to real space target response.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app