Abstract

Accommodation was monitored by using a high-speed infrared optometer while subjects viewed a target that appeared to approach and recede in a sinusoidal manner. The target was presented under open-loop conditions to prevent blurring because of accommodation. The experiments suggest that changing target size can be an effective stimulus on its own. This supports the view that accommodation responds to both dioptric and nondioptric stimuli.

© 1985 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. F. M. Toates, “Accommodation function of the human eye,” Physiol. Rev. 52, 828–863 (1972).
    [PubMed]
  2. Defocus blur is due to improper focus of the eye. It results when the target is either closer or farther away than the point of focus. Other sources of blur include the aberrations of the eye, diffraction, and scattering of light.
  3. F. W. Campbell, G. Westheimer, “Dynamics of accommodation responses of the human eye,” J. Physiol. (London) 151, 285–295 (1960).
  4. L. Stark, Y. Takahashi, G. Zames, “Nonlinear servoanalysis of human lens accommodation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern. SSC-1, 75–83 (1965).
    [CrossRef]
  5. V. V. Krishnan, S. Phillips, L. Stark, “Frequency analysis of accommodation, accommodative vergence and disparity vergence,” Vision Res. 13, 1545–1554 (1973).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. G. J. Van der Wildt, M. A. Bauman, J. Van de Kraats, “The effect of anticipation on the transfer function of the human lens system,” Opt. Acta 21, 843–860 (1974).
    [CrossRef]
  7. J. Tucker, W. N. Charman, “Reaction and response times for accommodation,” Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 56, 490–503 (1979).
    [CrossRef]
  8. W. H. Ittelson, A. Ames, “Accommodation, convergence, and their relation to apparent distance,” J. Psychol. 30, 43–62 (1950).
    [CrossRef]
  9. M. Alpern, “Vergence and accommodation,” AMA Arch. Ophthalmol. 60, 355–357 (1958).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. M. W. Morgan, “Accommodation and convergence,” Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 7, 417–454 (1968).
    [CrossRef]
  11. R. T. Hennessey, T. Iida, K. Shiina, H. W. Leibowitz, “The effect of pupil size on accommodation,” Vision Res. 16, 587–589 (1976).
    [CrossRef]
  12. H. D. Crane, T. N. Cornsweet, “Ocular-focus stimulator,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 60, 577 (1970).
  13. More specifically, a real image of the target was formed by the optical system, and this image of the target was viewed by the subject.
  14. P. B. Kruger, “Stimuli for accommodation: size, blur, and chromatic aberration,” Ph.D. dissertation (State University of New York, New York, 1984).
  15. P. B. Kruger, “Infrared recording retinoscope for monitoring accommodation,” Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 56, 116–123 (1979).
    [CrossRef]
  16. The accommodative system is usually regarded as a closed-loop negative-feedback system. In this view the input to the system is target blur and the output is lens curvature and thickness (lens dioptric power). The system involves negative feedback in the sense that when target blur is present the lens changes shape to eliminate (negate) the blur, so that the target finally appears clear. To open the feedback loop the accommodative system must be modified (through an external control system in our experiment) so that the appearance of the target, whether blurred or clear, is not influenced by changes in lens shape.
  17. G. Wald, D. R. Griffin, “The change in refractive power of the human eye in dim and bright light,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 37, 321–336 (1947).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. R. E. Bedford, G. Wyszecki, “Axial chromatic aberration of the human eye,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 47, 564–565 (1957).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. E. F. Fincham, “The accommodation reflex and its stimulus,” Br. J. Ophthalmol. 35, 381–393 (1951).
  20. Gain is response amplitude divided by stimulus amplitude, and phase is the distance in degrees from the peak of the stimulus to the peak of the response. To calculate the gain for size alone we used the fact that in the experiment the target initially subtended 4 deg at the eye and was located 50 cm away (2 D). Target size was then varied sinusoidally between 2 and 6 deg, which would simulate a change in distance between 100 cm (1 D) and 33.3 cm (3 D) giving a range of 2 D. To calculate the gain, 2 D was therefore used as the stimulus value.
  21. T. N. Cornsweet, H. D. Crane, “Training the visual accommodation system,” Vision Res. 13, 713–715 (1973).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Pilot studies on additional naive subjects suggest that if the target does not appear to approach and recede, but rather appears to be changing size while remaining stationary, the accommodative response may be considerably reduced or even absent.
  23. E. F. Fincham, J. Walton, “The reciprocal actions of accommodation and convergence,” J. Physiol. (London) 137, 488–508 (1957).
  24. H. W. Hofstetter, “The proximal factor in accommodation and convergence,” J. Psychol. 30, 393–394 (1950).
    [CrossRef]
  25. In fact under closed-loop conditions small changes in accommodation can take place within the limits of the depth of focus of the eye without causing noticeable blurring of the target.

1979 (2)

J. Tucker, W. N. Charman, “Reaction and response times for accommodation,” Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 56, 490–503 (1979).
[CrossRef]

P. B. Kruger, “Infrared recording retinoscope for monitoring accommodation,” Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 56, 116–123 (1979).
[CrossRef]

1976 (1)

R. T. Hennessey, T. Iida, K. Shiina, H. W. Leibowitz, “The effect of pupil size on accommodation,” Vision Res. 16, 587–589 (1976).
[CrossRef]

1974 (1)

G. J. Van der Wildt, M. A. Bauman, J. Van de Kraats, “The effect of anticipation on the transfer function of the human lens system,” Opt. Acta 21, 843–860 (1974).
[CrossRef]

1973 (2)

V. V. Krishnan, S. Phillips, L. Stark, “Frequency analysis of accommodation, accommodative vergence and disparity vergence,” Vision Res. 13, 1545–1554 (1973).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

T. N. Cornsweet, H. D. Crane, “Training the visual accommodation system,” Vision Res. 13, 713–715 (1973).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1972 (1)

F. M. Toates, “Accommodation function of the human eye,” Physiol. Rev. 52, 828–863 (1972).
[PubMed]

1970 (1)

1968 (1)

M. W. Morgan, “Accommodation and convergence,” Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 7, 417–454 (1968).
[CrossRef]

1965 (1)

L. Stark, Y. Takahashi, G. Zames, “Nonlinear servoanalysis of human lens accommodation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern. SSC-1, 75–83 (1965).
[CrossRef]

1960 (1)

F. W. Campbell, G. Westheimer, “Dynamics of accommodation responses of the human eye,” J. Physiol. (London) 151, 285–295 (1960).

1958 (1)

M. Alpern, “Vergence and accommodation,” AMA Arch. Ophthalmol. 60, 355–357 (1958).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1957 (2)

E. F. Fincham, J. Walton, “The reciprocal actions of accommodation and convergence,” J. Physiol. (London) 137, 488–508 (1957).

R. E. Bedford, G. Wyszecki, “Axial chromatic aberration of the human eye,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 47, 564–565 (1957).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

1951 (1)

E. F. Fincham, “The accommodation reflex and its stimulus,” Br. J. Ophthalmol. 35, 381–393 (1951).

1950 (2)

H. W. Hofstetter, “The proximal factor in accommodation and convergence,” J. Psychol. 30, 393–394 (1950).
[CrossRef]

W. H. Ittelson, A. Ames, “Accommodation, convergence, and their relation to apparent distance,” J. Psychol. 30, 43–62 (1950).
[CrossRef]

1947 (1)

Alpern, M.

M. Alpern, “Vergence and accommodation,” AMA Arch. Ophthalmol. 60, 355–357 (1958).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Ames, A.

W. H. Ittelson, A. Ames, “Accommodation, convergence, and their relation to apparent distance,” J. Psychol. 30, 43–62 (1950).
[CrossRef]

Bauman, M. A.

G. J. Van der Wildt, M. A. Bauman, J. Van de Kraats, “The effect of anticipation on the transfer function of the human lens system,” Opt. Acta 21, 843–860 (1974).
[CrossRef]

Bedford, R. E.

Campbell, F. W.

F. W. Campbell, G. Westheimer, “Dynamics of accommodation responses of the human eye,” J. Physiol. (London) 151, 285–295 (1960).

Charman, W. N.

J. Tucker, W. N. Charman, “Reaction and response times for accommodation,” Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 56, 490–503 (1979).
[CrossRef]

Cornsweet, T. N.

T. N. Cornsweet, H. D. Crane, “Training the visual accommodation system,” Vision Res. 13, 713–715 (1973).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

H. D. Crane, T. N. Cornsweet, “Ocular-focus stimulator,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 60, 577 (1970).

Crane, H. D.

T. N. Cornsweet, H. D. Crane, “Training the visual accommodation system,” Vision Res. 13, 713–715 (1973).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

H. D. Crane, T. N. Cornsweet, “Ocular-focus stimulator,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 60, 577 (1970).

Fincham, E. F.

E. F. Fincham, J. Walton, “The reciprocal actions of accommodation and convergence,” J. Physiol. (London) 137, 488–508 (1957).

E. F. Fincham, “The accommodation reflex and its stimulus,” Br. J. Ophthalmol. 35, 381–393 (1951).

Griffin, D. R.

Hennessey, R. T.

R. T. Hennessey, T. Iida, K. Shiina, H. W. Leibowitz, “The effect of pupil size on accommodation,” Vision Res. 16, 587–589 (1976).
[CrossRef]

Hofstetter, H. W.

H. W. Hofstetter, “The proximal factor in accommodation and convergence,” J. Psychol. 30, 393–394 (1950).
[CrossRef]

Iida, T.

R. T. Hennessey, T. Iida, K. Shiina, H. W. Leibowitz, “The effect of pupil size on accommodation,” Vision Res. 16, 587–589 (1976).
[CrossRef]

Ittelson, W. H.

W. H. Ittelson, A. Ames, “Accommodation, convergence, and their relation to apparent distance,” J. Psychol. 30, 43–62 (1950).
[CrossRef]

Krishnan, V. V.

V. V. Krishnan, S. Phillips, L. Stark, “Frequency analysis of accommodation, accommodative vergence and disparity vergence,” Vision Res. 13, 1545–1554 (1973).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Kruger, P. B.

P. B. Kruger, “Infrared recording retinoscope for monitoring accommodation,” Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 56, 116–123 (1979).
[CrossRef]

P. B. Kruger, “Stimuli for accommodation: size, blur, and chromatic aberration,” Ph.D. dissertation (State University of New York, New York, 1984).

Leibowitz, H. W.

R. T. Hennessey, T. Iida, K. Shiina, H. W. Leibowitz, “The effect of pupil size on accommodation,” Vision Res. 16, 587–589 (1976).
[CrossRef]

Morgan, M. W.

M. W. Morgan, “Accommodation and convergence,” Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 7, 417–454 (1968).
[CrossRef]

Phillips, S.

V. V. Krishnan, S. Phillips, L. Stark, “Frequency analysis of accommodation, accommodative vergence and disparity vergence,” Vision Res. 13, 1545–1554 (1973).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Shiina, K.

R. T. Hennessey, T. Iida, K. Shiina, H. W. Leibowitz, “The effect of pupil size on accommodation,” Vision Res. 16, 587–589 (1976).
[CrossRef]

Stark, L.

V. V. Krishnan, S. Phillips, L. Stark, “Frequency analysis of accommodation, accommodative vergence and disparity vergence,” Vision Res. 13, 1545–1554 (1973).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

L. Stark, Y. Takahashi, G. Zames, “Nonlinear servoanalysis of human lens accommodation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern. SSC-1, 75–83 (1965).
[CrossRef]

Takahashi, Y.

L. Stark, Y. Takahashi, G. Zames, “Nonlinear servoanalysis of human lens accommodation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern. SSC-1, 75–83 (1965).
[CrossRef]

Toates, F. M.

F. M. Toates, “Accommodation function of the human eye,” Physiol. Rev. 52, 828–863 (1972).
[PubMed]

Tucker, J.

J. Tucker, W. N. Charman, “Reaction and response times for accommodation,” Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 56, 490–503 (1979).
[CrossRef]

Van de Kraats, J.

G. J. Van der Wildt, M. A. Bauman, J. Van de Kraats, “The effect of anticipation on the transfer function of the human lens system,” Opt. Acta 21, 843–860 (1974).
[CrossRef]

Van der Wildt, G. J.

G. J. Van der Wildt, M. A. Bauman, J. Van de Kraats, “The effect of anticipation on the transfer function of the human lens system,” Opt. Acta 21, 843–860 (1974).
[CrossRef]

Wald, G.

Walton, J.

E. F. Fincham, J. Walton, “The reciprocal actions of accommodation and convergence,” J. Physiol. (London) 137, 488–508 (1957).

Westheimer, G.

F. W. Campbell, G. Westheimer, “Dynamics of accommodation responses of the human eye,” J. Physiol. (London) 151, 285–295 (1960).

Wyszecki, G.

Zames, G.

L. Stark, Y. Takahashi, G. Zames, “Nonlinear servoanalysis of human lens accommodation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern. SSC-1, 75–83 (1965).
[CrossRef]

Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. (3)

J. Tucker, W. N. Charman, “Reaction and response times for accommodation,” Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 56, 490–503 (1979).
[CrossRef]

M. W. Morgan, “Accommodation and convergence,” Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 7, 417–454 (1968).
[CrossRef]

P. B. Kruger, “Infrared recording retinoscope for monitoring accommodation,” Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 56, 116–123 (1979).
[CrossRef]

AMA Arch. Ophthalmol. (1)

M. Alpern, “Vergence and accommodation,” AMA Arch. Ophthalmol. 60, 355–357 (1958).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Br. J. Ophthalmol. (1)

E. F. Fincham, “The accommodation reflex and its stimulus,” Br. J. Ophthalmol. 35, 381–393 (1951).

IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern. (1)

L. Stark, Y. Takahashi, G. Zames, “Nonlinear servoanalysis of human lens accommodation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern. SSC-1, 75–83 (1965).
[CrossRef]

J. Opt. Soc. Am. (3)

J. Physiol. (London) (2)

F. W. Campbell, G. Westheimer, “Dynamics of accommodation responses of the human eye,” J. Physiol. (London) 151, 285–295 (1960).

E. F. Fincham, J. Walton, “The reciprocal actions of accommodation and convergence,” J. Physiol. (London) 137, 488–508 (1957).

J. Psychol. (2)

H. W. Hofstetter, “The proximal factor in accommodation and convergence,” J. Psychol. 30, 393–394 (1950).
[CrossRef]

W. H. Ittelson, A. Ames, “Accommodation, convergence, and their relation to apparent distance,” J. Psychol. 30, 43–62 (1950).
[CrossRef]

Opt. Acta (1)

G. J. Van der Wildt, M. A. Bauman, J. Van de Kraats, “The effect of anticipation on the transfer function of the human lens system,” Opt. Acta 21, 843–860 (1974).
[CrossRef]

Physiol. Rev. (1)

F. M. Toates, “Accommodation function of the human eye,” Physiol. Rev. 52, 828–863 (1972).
[PubMed]

Vision Res. (3)

V. V. Krishnan, S. Phillips, L. Stark, “Frequency analysis of accommodation, accommodative vergence and disparity vergence,” Vision Res. 13, 1545–1554 (1973).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

R. T. Hennessey, T. Iida, K. Shiina, H. W. Leibowitz, “The effect of pupil size on accommodation,” Vision Res. 16, 587–589 (1976).
[CrossRef]

T. N. Cornsweet, H. D. Crane, “Training the visual accommodation system,” Vision Res. 13, 713–715 (1973).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Other (7)

Pilot studies on additional naive subjects suggest that if the target does not appear to approach and recede, but rather appears to be changing size while remaining stationary, the accommodative response may be considerably reduced or even absent.

Gain is response amplitude divided by stimulus amplitude, and phase is the distance in degrees from the peak of the stimulus to the peak of the response. To calculate the gain for size alone we used the fact that in the experiment the target initially subtended 4 deg at the eye and was located 50 cm away (2 D). Target size was then varied sinusoidally between 2 and 6 deg, which would simulate a change in distance between 100 cm (1 D) and 33.3 cm (3 D) giving a range of 2 D. To calculate the gain, 2 D was therefore used as the stimulus value.

In fact under closed-loop conditions small changes in accommodation can take place within the limits of the depth of focus of the eye without causing noticeable blurring of the target.

More specifically, a real image of the target was formed by the optical system, and this image of the target was viewed by the subject.

P. B. Kruger, “Stimuli for accommodation: size, blur, and chromatic aberration,” Ph.D. dissertation (State University of New York, New York, 1984).

The accommodative system is usually regarded as a closed-loop negative-feedback system. In this view the input to the system is target blur and the output is lens curvature and thickness (lens dioptric power). The system involves negative feedback in the sense that when target blur is present the lens changes shape to eliminate (negate) the blur, so that the target finally appears clear. To open the feedback loop the accommodative system must be modified (through an external control system in our experiment) so that the appearance of the target, whether blurred or clear, is not influenced by changes in lens shape.

Defocus blur is due to improper focus of the eye. It results when the target is either closer or farther away than the point of focus. Other sources of blur include the aberrations of the eye, diffraction, and scattering of light.

Cited By

OSA participates in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (3)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Accommodative responses of one subject at four temporal frequencies (0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 Hz) to changes in target size. As the frequency of the stimulus increased the response followed at the same frequency.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Gain and phase plots of accommodation as a function of frequency of sinusoidal changes in target size for two subjects. Error bars show ±1 standard deviation (SD). Gain was high for one subject (TH) and low for the other subject (BF). The subjects show a phase lead at low and moderate frequencies.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Gain and phase plots of accommodation as a function of frequency of target motion, for one subject. Error bars show ±1 SD. Data are shown for two stimulus conditions: blur and size combined and blur on its own. When size is added to blur there is a dramatic reduction in phase lag.

Metrics