Insufficient accommodation during binocular near viewing in eyes with intermittent exotropia

  • Takeshi MorimotoEmail author
  • Hiroyuki Kanda
  • Masakazu Hirota
  • Kohji Nishida
  • Takashi Fujikado
Clinical Investigation



To investigate the changes in spherical equivalent and pupil response during near viewing in patients with intermittent exotropia (IXT) who have complaints of blurred vision or asthenopia from near viewing in daily life using a novel binocular wavefront aberrometer.

Study design

A cross-sectional study.


Ten IXT patients and ten healthy subjects wearing full-correction lenses at far sight (5 m) were instructed to fixate on a near target at 67 cm, which was then moved to 40 cm three times. Serial changes in the spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error (SE) were measured during this task using a laboratory-made open-field binocular Hartmann–Shack wavefront aberrometer and compared between patients and healthy subjects. In the IXT patients, regression analysis was performed between ∆SE and exodeviation angles, as measured by an alternate prism and cover test. Pupil-diameter and pupil-constriction ratios were also compared between patients and healthy subjects, and the correlation of constriction ratio with ∆SE was calculated for both groups.


Compared to healthy subjects, IXT patients demonstrated significantly lower ∆SE of convergence (mean ± SD, 0.91 ± 0.26 D vs. 1.15 ± 0.19 D; P < 0.05) and divergence (0.93 ± 0.28 D vs. 1.16 ± 0.20 D; P < 0.05). Angle of exotropia was negatively correlated with ∆SE during far-sight and near-sight convergence and divergence (P < 0.05). Pupil-constriction ratio was also reduced in patients compared to healthy subjects (6.67% ± 3.31% vs. 11.9% ± 5.96%; P<0.05). Pupil-constriction ratio was positively correlated with ∆SE during convergence in both groups (P < 0.05).


Insufficient accommodation and pupil constriction during near viewing were observed in patients with IXT who had complaints of blurred vision or asthenopia from near viewing. These conditions might contribute to symptoms, such as fatigue, eye strain and impaired visual performance.


Exotropia Accommodation Pupil constriction Binocular vision Eye fatigue 



The authors would like to thank Enago ( for the English language review.

Conflicts of interest

T. Morimoto, None; H. Kanda, None; M. Hirota, None; K. Nishida, None; T. Fujikado, None.


  1. 1.
    Govindan M, Mohney BG, Diehl NN, Burke JP. Incidence and types of childhood exotropia: a population-based study. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:104–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mohney BG, Huffaker RK. Common forms of childhood exotropia. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:2093–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jung JW, Lee SY. A comparison of the clinical characteristics of intermittent exotropia in children and adults. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2010;24:96–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee SY, Oh JS, Kim SJ. The clinical characteristics and surgical results in the intermittent exotropia more than 15 years of age. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1997;36:1056–63.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walsh LA, Laroche GR, Tremblay F. The use of binocular visual acuity in the assessment of intermittent exotropia. J AAPOS. 2000;4:154–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ahn SJ, Yang HK, Hwang JM. Binocular visual acuity in intermittent exotropia: role of accommodative convergence. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154:981–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shimojyo H, Kitaguchi Y, Asonuma S, Matsushita K, Fujikado T. Age-related changes of phoria myopia in patients with intermittent exotropia. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2009;53:12–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chirre E, Prieto P, Artal P. Dynamics of the near response under natural viewing conditions with an open-view sensor. Biomed Opt Express. 2015;6:4200–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ha SG, Jang SM, Cho YA, Kim SH, Song JS, Suh YW. Clinical exhibition of increased accommodative loads for binocular fusion in patients with basic intermittent exotropia. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016;16:77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horwood AM, Riddell PM. The use of cues to convergence and accommodation in naïve, uninstructed participants. Vis Res. 2008;48:1613–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prieto PM, Vargas-Martín F, Goelz S, Artal P. Analysis of the performance of the Hartmann–Shack sensor in the human eye. J Opt Soc Am A. 2000;17:1388–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hampson KM, Chin SS, Mallen EAH. Binocular Shack–Hartmann sensor for the human eye. J Mod Opt. 2007;55:703–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kobayashi M, Nakazawa N, Yamaguchi T, Otaki T, Hirohara Y, Mihashi T. Binocular open-view Shack–Hartmann wavefront sensor with consecutive measurements of near triad and spherical aberration. Appl Opt. 2008;47:4619–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kanda H, Kobayashi M, Mihashi T, Morimoto T, Nishida K, Fujikado T. Serial measurements of accommodation by open-field Hartmann–Shack wavefront aberrometer in eyes with accommodative spasm. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2012;56:617–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horwood AM, Riddell PM. Evidence that convergence rather than accommodation controls intermittent distance exotropia. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90:e109–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Ophthalmological Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takeshi Morimoto
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hiroyuki Kanda
    • 1
  • Masakazu Hirota
    • 1
  • Kohji Nishida
    • 2
  • Takashi Fujikado
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied Visual ScienceOsaka University Graduate School of MedicineSuitaJapan
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyOsaka University Graduate School of MedicineSuitaJapan

Personalised recommendations