RGUHS Animesh M et al.

, RJAHS 2021; 1(3):24-27

Journal of Allied Health Sciences

Original Article

Accommodative Facility in Emmetropes and Myopes

Animesh Mondal*, Harishma Rajeev

Department of Optometry and Vision Science, Mangala College of Allied Health Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka,
India - 575029.

Corresponding author:
Mr. Animesh Mondal, Assistant Professor, Department of Optometry and Vision Science, Mangala College of
Allied Health Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka, India –575029. E-mail: [email protected]
Affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka.
Received date: August 4, 2021; Accepted date: October 17, 2021; Published date: October 31, 2021

Abstract
Background: A relationship between near work and nearsightedness has driven examiners to propose that the
activity of the crystalline lens, especially accommodation, is associated with the development and progression
of nearsightedness. Myopes have been found to have strange accommodative reaction to blur.
Objective: To compare accommodative facility in eyes with emmetropia and myopia.
Method: This cross-sectional study was conducted among subjects in the age group of 18 - 24 years. Twenty
emmetropic subjects and 20 myopic subjects were selected for the study. The subjects underwent vision
assessment and refraction, slit lamp examination and few binocular vision assessments like cover test and broad
H test. Accommodative facility was measured by using ± 2.00 D accommodative flippers in both emmetropes
and myopes (with correction).
Results: Accommodative facility in both the groups was measured. From this study, it can be clearly noted that
there was a highly significant difference in accommodative facility of emmetropes and accommodative facility
of myopes. There was a reduced accommodative facility in myopes than in emmetropes.
Conclusion: The findings, collected data and the results of our study showed that accommodative facility was
reduced in myopes when compared to emmetropes.
Keywords: Emmetropia, Myopia, Accommodative facility, Accommodation

Introduction binocularly, by having the subject focus a little objective

Accommodation alludes to the cycle, whereby changes and then again through plus and minus lenses, which are
in the dioptric power of the crystalline lens happen with traded when the objective shows up as a clear image.
the goal that an in-focus retinal picture of an object of The activity is rehashed commonly and the outcomes
respect is gotten and kept up with at the high-resolution are usually introduced in cycles each moment (one cycle
fovea. Accommodative facility is the capacity of eyes demonstrates that both plus and minus lens have been
to focus on stimuli at different distances and in various cleared.1,2,3
groupings in a given timeframe. Clinically this is Nearsightedness or limitation is a condition in which
estimated (by utilizing flippers) either monocularly or

24
 Animesh M et al., RJAHS 2021; 1(3):24-27

individuals can see close items clearly, yet objects farther were emmetropes and 20 myopes, was taken, all in the age
away seem blurred. Individuals with nearsightedness are range of 18 years to 24 years. This assessment uncovers
named as myopes.4,5 Emmetropia is ordinary refractive about the accommodative status like accommodative
state of eye in which the beams of light are precisely facility. The respondents were picked randomly at their
focused on the retina. A relationship between close to own will. Individuals who were not intrigued to take part
work action and nearsightedness has driven agents to in this appraisal were dismissed.
propose that the activity of crystalline lens, especially
Research tool
convenience is associated with the turn of events and
movement of nearsightedness.6,7,8 Generally the absence Visual acuity for distance and close was taken and
of an exact accommodative reaction compared to time binocular vision evaluation was done. First cover test,
of retinal defocus prompts expanded eye development cover uncover test, and alternative cover test was done.
and nearsightedness.9 Different proportions of NPA (Near Point of Accommodation) and NPC (Near
accommodation like amplitude of accommodation, Point of Convergence) were assessed using RAF ruler.
tonic accommodation, accommodative adaption, NRA (Negative Relative Accommodation) and PRA
accommodative stimulus response curve, and near work (Positive Relative Accommodation) were assessed
actuated transient nearsightedness have been explored using besides, short and close to vision diagram. NFV
and there is developing proof from these examinations (Negative Fusional Vergence) and PFV (Positive Fusional
to propose that errors of accommodation are related with Vergence) were assessed using horizontal prism bar. The
nearsightedness.10 Notwithstanding these discoveries, accommodative office of each understudy was assessed
in any case, the component by which accommodation using ±2.00D flipper. Stereopsis of the understudies was
could influence the improvement of nearsightedness assessed using TNO and red and green displays. After
isn’t completely perceived and, of significance, there that MEM (Monocular Estimation Method), Broad H
is no single proportion of accommodation that can be test was performed to actually look at the visual motility.
utilized to anticipate a relationship with nearsightedness. Data collection and analysis
Accommodative facility results have been demonstrated
The respondents were taught about the explanation
to be a helpful indicator of likely visual distress
and targets of the appraisal prior to taking the consent
and furthermore of scholarly achievement.11 Low
from them. With the coordinated evaluation, data were
accommodative facility is additionally utilized as
gathered from them. Data examination was performed
an indicative sign for accommodative insufficiency.
using Microsoft Excel 2007 and SPSS-V.18.0. Real
Contrasts in execution have been found among
assessment of connection was done by using Paired-t
indicative and asymptomatic patients and diverse
test.
refractive blunders gatherings.12 Myopes showed lower
speeds of accommodation and disaccommodation during Inclusion and exclusion criteria
distance facility estimation, alongside longer time Subjects within the age group of 18-24 years, with the
spans.12 At close, the accommodative facility rate was vision of 6/6 and nearsightedness were enrolled for
comparative in both refractive gatherings; no critical the study. Subjects with hypermetropia, fundamental
contrasts in velocities of accommodation were found sickness, visual medical procedure, nystagmus,
between the two gatherings, despite the fact that speed amblyopia were barred from the study. Measurable
of disaccommodation was somewhat lower in myopes investigation of correlation was finished by utilizing
when contrasted with emmetropes. Nearsighted eyes Paired-t test.
have diminished accommodative facility at distance
and accommodative responsiveness to both positive Results
and negative defocus is moderate. Be that as it may, For 20 emmetropes, the mean accommodative facility
accommodative facility as a test doesn’t have adequate in right eye was 13.850 cycles per minute (cpm) and
ability to separate eyes with nearsightedness from other the standard deviation was 1.531. For 20 myopes, the
refractive errors.13,14 mean accommodative facility in right eye was 8.100
cpm and standard deviation was 1.071. The p-value
Materials and Methods for accommodative facility in right eye was p<0.001
Study design and population and it was significant. For 20 emmetropes, the mean
This cross-sectional assessment was brought out through accommodative facility in left eye was 13.000 cpm
discernment. Information of 40 subjects, of which 20 and the standard deviation was 1.487. For 20 myopes,

25
 Animesh M et al., RJAHS 2021; 1(3):24-27

the mean accommodative facility in left eye was 7.750 and the standard deviation was 1.146. For 20 myopes,
cpm and the standard deviation was 0.851. The p-value the mean accommodative facility in both eyes was 6.700
for accommodative facility in left eye was p<0.001 cpm and the standard deviation was 0.923. The p-value
and it was significant. For 20 emmetropes, the mean for accommodative facility in both eyes was p<0.001
accommodative facility in both eyes was 11.550 cpm and it was significant.

Table 1: Comparison of accommodative facility in emmetropes and myopes

Group N Mean Std. Deviation t

Emmetropia 20 13.850 1.531 13.761
Accommodative facility-OD
Myopia 20 8.100 1.071 p<0.001 vhs
Accommodative Emmetropia 20 13.000 1.487 13.707

facility-OS Myopia 20 7.750 .851 p<0.001 vhs

Emmetropia 20 11.550 1.146 14.738
Accommodative facility –OU
Myopia 20 6.700 .923 p<0.001 vhs

13.000±1.487 cpm. Less mean AF was observed even

in left eye. While checking mean AF in binocularly, less
mean AF of 6.700±0.923 cpm was observed in myopes
when compared to 11.550±1.146 cpm mean AF in
emmetropes.
As we go through the previous studies, it was noted that
there was reduced accommodative facility in myopes
than in emmetropes.
Ashok Pandian et al.,17 led an investigation on
“Accommodative facility in eyes with and without
nearsightedness” in year - 1 students. They demonstrated
Figure 1: Bar chart showing comparison of Accommo-
less mean facility for nearsighted eyes at 5.5 ± 2.0 cycles
dative Facility (AF) in emmetropes and myopes
per minute (cpm) in contrast to 6.9 ± 1.7 cpm for eyes with
Figure 1 shows the reduced accommodative facility in emmetropia or hyperopia. Nearsighted eyes recorded
myopes than in emmetropes more prominent positive and negative accommodative
reaction times than did emmetropic or hyperopia
Discussion eyes. They tracked down that nearsighted eyes have
Accommodation is the eye’s capacity to change power
decreased accommodative facility and accommodative
in order to focus on objects at various distances.15 To
responsiveness to both positive and negative lens.
focus on a closer object, it is fundamental for the eye
to increase its dioptric power. Accommodative facility Hema Radhakrishnan, Peter M Allen, W Neil Charman18
estimates the speed of accommodative responsiveness led an examination on “Elements of accommodative
(capacity to adjust accommodation quickly and precisely) facility in myopes”. Subjective and objective target
to blur. Clinically this is estimated either monocularly estimations showed a critical lower facility rate in
or binocularly, typically by having the lens exchanged myopes when contrasted with emmetropes (p<0.05).
when the objective shows up clear.16 The reaction amplitude of accommodation during
facility assignments was observed to be comparative in
The present study titled “Accommodative facility in
the two refractive gatherings. They found that there was
emmetropes and myopes” has shown the results that out of
a critical lower facility rate in myopes when contrasted
40 subjects, 20 myopes showed reduced accommodative
with emmetropes.
facility when compared to 20 emmetropes. The present
study observed less AF (accommodative facility) in Conclusion
right eye of myopes 8.100±1.071 cpm in comparison to The findings, collected data and the results of our study
13.850±1.531. In left eye, the mean AF in myopes was showed that accommodative facility was reduced in
7.750±0.851 cpm and in emmetropes the mean AF was myopes when compared to emmetropes.

26
 Animesh M et al., RJAHS 2021; 1(3):24-27

Funding 7. Adams DW, McBrien NA. Prevalence of myopia

None & myopic progression in a population of clinical
microscopists. Optom Vis Sci 1992;62:88-93.
Conflict of interest
None 8. Ting PW, Mam CS, Edwards MH, Schemid KL.
Prevalence of myopia in a group of Hong Kong
Institutional Ethical clearance obtained
microscopists. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:88-93.
Acknowledgement 9. Multi DO, Zadnik K. The utility & three predictors
I might want to communicate my unique thank you of of childhood myopia: a Bayesian analysis. Vision
appreciation to my guide Mr. Animesh Mondal simply Res 1995;35:1345-1352.
as our essential Prof. Pratijna Suhasini (Principal of
Mangala College of Allied Health Sciences) who gave me 10. Bobier WR, Sivak JG. Orthoptic treatment of
the brilliant chance to do that outstanding assignment at subjects showing slow accommodative responses.
the theme “Accommodative Facility in Emmetropes and Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1983;60:678-687.
Myopes”, which additionally assisted me with lofting 11. Grosvenor TP. Primary Care Optometry. Chicago:
of exploration and I came to reflect on consideration on Professional Press;1982. p. 97.
such endless new things. I am truly thankful to them.
Moreover, I might likewise need to thank my HOD Mrs. 12. Ciffreda KJ, Lee M. Differential refractive
Sonu Srambikkal for encouraging me in accumulating susceptibility to sustained nearwork. Ophthalmic
statistics and my partners who brought about me an Physiol Opt 2002;22:372-379.
exceptional deal in completing this assignment in the 13. Zellers JA, Alpert TL, Rouse MW. A review of study
confined time span. of accommodative facility. J Am Optom Assoc
1984;55:31-37.
References
1. Daum KM. Accommodative dysfunction. Doc 14. Campbell FW, Westhecmer G. Dynamics of
Ophthalmol 1983;55:177-198. accommodation responses of the human eyes. J
Physiol 1960;151:285-295.
2. O’ Leary DJ, Allen PM. Facility of accommodation
in myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2001;21:352- 15. Kasthurirangan S, Glasser A. Influence of amplitude
355. & starting point on accommodative dynamics in
humans. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:3463-
3. Allen PM, O ‘ Leary DJ. Accommodation functions:
3472.
Co - dependency & relationship to refractive error.
Vision Res 2006;46:491-505. 16. Campbell FW. Correlation of accommodation
between the two eyes. J Opt Soc Am 1960;50:738.
4. Vera-Diaz FA, Strang NC, Winn B. Nearwork
induced transient myopia during myopia 17. Pandian A, Sankaridurg PR, Naduvilath T, et al.
progression. Curr Eye Res 2002;24:289-295. Accommodative facility in eyes with and without
myopia. Invest ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:4725-
5. Radhakrishnan H, Allen PM, Charman WN.
4731.
Dynamics of accommodative facility in myopes.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48(9):4375-4382. 18. Allen PM, Weil Charman WN, Radhakrishnan
H. Changes in dynamics of accommodation after
6. Radhakrishnan H, Darshan S, Calver RI, O ‘ Leary
accommodative facility training in myopes and
DJ. Effect of positive and negative defocus on
emmetropes. Vision Res 2010;50(10):947-55.
contrast sensitivity in myopes and non myopes.
Vision Res 2004;44:1869-1878.

27