Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mechanism of accommodation assessed by change in precisely registered ocular images associated with concurrent change in auto-refraction

  • Miscellaneous
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Our purpose was to determine the changes in anterior chamber depth (ACD) and central lens thickness (CLT) during pharmacologically induced accommodation.

Methods

Following pupillary dilation with phenylephrine 10%, baseline auto-refractions and swept-source optical coherence tomographic biometric images (Zeiss IOLMaster 700) were obtained from the right eyes of 25 subjects aged 19 to 24 years. Pilocarpine 4% and phenylephrine 10% were then instilled into these right eyes. One hour later, auto-refractions and biometric imaging were repeated. Only data from eight of 25 subjects met the following stringent criteria to be included in the study analysis: pre and post-pilocarpine biometric foveal images were registerable, the images of the corneal centers were shifted by ≤100 μm, pupils >5 mm and the pharmacologically induced refractive change was ≥ −7 diopters.

Results

The mean auto-refractive accommodative change for the eight included subjects was −12.45 diopters (± 3.45 diopters). The mean change in CLT was 81 μm (± 54 μm) and the mean change in ACD was −145 μm (± 86 μm). Superimposition of the registered pre and post-pilocarpine biometric images of the sagittal sections of the whole eye from each subject demonstrated that the position of the whole lens did not shift either anteriorly, posteriorly or vertically during pharmacologically induced accommodation.

Conclusions

A small increase in lens thickness was associated with a large change in accommodative amplitude and no significant change in lens position as predicted by the Schachar theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Enright JT (1980) Ocular translation and cyclotorsion due to changes in fixation distance. Vis Res 20:595–601

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Buehren T, Collins MJ, Loughridge J, Carney LG, Iskander DR (2003) Corneal topography and accommodation. Cornea 22:311–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Steffen H, Walker MF, Zee DS (2000) Rotation of Listing’s plane with convergence: independence of eye position. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 41:715–721

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cha DI, Lee MW, Song KD et al (2017) A prospective comparison between auto-registration and manual registration of real-time ultrasound with MR images for percutaneous ablation or biopsy of hepatic lesions. Abdom Radiol 42:1799–1808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Che C, Mathai TS, Galeotti J (2017) Ultrasound registration: a review. Methods 15:128–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cleary K, Peters TM (2010) Image-guided interventions: technology review and clinical applications. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 12:119–142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gu Y, McNamara JA Jr (2008) Cephalometric superimpositions. A comparison of anatomical and metallic implant methods. Angle Orthod 78:967–976

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hill DL, Batchelor PG, Holden M, Hawkes DJ (2001) Medical image registration. Phys Med Biol 46:R1–R45

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim JS, Ishikawa H, Sung KR et al (2009) Retinal nerve fibre layer thickness measurement reproducibility improved with spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Br J Ophthalmol 93:1057–1063

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Chin EK, Sedeek RW, Li Y, Beckett L, Redenbo E, Chandra K, Park SS (2012) Reproducibility of macular thickness measurement among five OCT instruments: effects of image resolution, image registration, and eye tracking. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 43:97–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mendez N, Kommana SS, Szirth B, Khouri AS (2015) Structural changes by spectral domain optical coherence tomography in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol 10:271–276

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Sohrab MA, Smith RT, Salehi-Had H, Sadda SR, Fawzi AA (2011) Image registration and multimodal imaging of reticular pseudodrusen. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:5743–5748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ramsey DJ, Sunness JS, Malviya P, Applegate C, Hager GD, Handa JT (2014) Automated image alignment and segmentation to follow progression of geographic atrophy in age-related macular degeneration. Retina 34:1296–1307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schachar R A, Tello C, Cudmore DP, Liebmann JM, Black TD, Ritch R (1996) In vivo increase of the human lens equatorial diameter during accommodation. Am J Physiol 271(3 pt. 2):R670-676

  15. IOL Master 700 (2015) User Manual. Carl Zeiss Meditec, AG, Jena, Germany, pp 40–50

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kunert KS, Peter M, Blum M, Haigis W, Sekundo W, Schütze J, Büehren T (2016) Repeatability and agreement in optical biometry of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer versus partial coherence interferometry and optical low-coherence reflectometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:76–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Garza-Leon M, Fuentes-de la Fuente HA, García-Treviño AV (2016) Repeatability of ocular biometry with IOLMaster 700 in subjects with clear lens. Int Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-016-0380-7

  18. Hoffer KJ, Hoffmann PC, Savini G (2016) Comparison of a new optical biometer using swept-source optical coherence tomography and a biometer using optical low-coherence reflectometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:1165–1172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sisó-Fuertes I, Domínguez-Vicent A, del Águila-Carrasco A, Ferrer-Blasco T, Montés-Micó R (2015) Corneal changes with accommodation using dual Scheimpflug photography. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:981–989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schachar RA (2012) The mechanism of accommodation and presbyopia. Kugler Publications, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  21. von Helmholtz H (1855) Uber die akkommodation des auges. Archiv für Ophthalmol 1:1–74

    Google Scholar 

  22. Esteve-Taboada JJ, Del Águila-Carrasco AJ, Bernal-Molina P, Ferrer-Blasco T, López-Gil N, Montés-Micó R (2016) Effect of phenylephrine on the accommodative system. J Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7968918

  23. Koretz JF, Kaufman PL, Neider MW, Goeckner PA (1989) Accommodation and presbyopia in the human eye - aging of the anterior segment. Vis Res 29:1685–1692

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chien CH, Huang T, Schachar RA (2006) Analysis of human crystalline lens accommodation. J Biomech 39:672–680

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schachar RA, Bax AJ (2001) Mechanism of human accommodation as analyzed by nonlinear finite element analysis. Compr Ther 27(Summer):122–132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schachar RA (2011) Finite element analysis and the Schachar mechanism of accommodation. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:979

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Van de Sompel D, Kunkel GJ, Hersh PS, Smits AJ (2010) Model of accommodation: contributions of lens geometry and mechanical properties to the development of presbyopia. Cataract Refract Surg 36:1960–1971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Besner S, Scarcelli G, Pineda R, Yun SH (2016) In vivo Brillouin analysis of the aging crystalline lens. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 57:5093–5100

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Wold JE, Hu A, Chen S, OD, Glasser A (2003) Subjective and objective measurement of human accommodative amplitude. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:1878-1888

  30. Kirkwood BR, Sterne AC (2003) Medical statistics, 2nd edn. Blackwell Science, Malden, Massachusetts, pp 413–428

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schachar RA, Mani M, Schachar IH (2017) Image registration reveals central lens thickness minimally increases during accommodation. Clin Ophthalmol 11:1625–1636

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Eisenhauer JG (2003) Regression through the origin. Teach Stat 25:76–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Neri A, Ruggeri M, Protti A, Leaci R, Gandolfi SA, Macaluso C (2015) Dynamic imaging of accommodation by swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:501–510

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Martinez-Enriquez E, Pérez-Merino P, Velasco-Ocana M, Marcos S (2017) OCT-based full crystalline lens shape change during accommodation in vivo. Biomed Opt Express 8:918–933

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Richdale K, Bullimore MA, Zadnik K (2008) Lens thickness with age and accommodation by optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 28:441–447

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Ramasubramanian V, Glasser A (2015) Prediction of accommodative optical response in prepresbyopic patients using ultrasound biomicroscopy. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:964–980

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Ni Y, Liu XL, Wu MX, Lin Y, Sun YY, He C, Liu YZ (2011) Objective evaluation of the changes in the crystalline lens during accommodation in young and presbyopic populations using Pentacam HR system. Int J Ophthalmol 4:611–615

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Jones CE, Atchison DA, Pope JM (2007) Changes in lens dimensions and refractive index with age and accommodation. Optom Vis Sci 84:990–995

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tsorbatzoglou A, Németh G, Széll N, Biró Z, Berta A (2007) Anterior segment changes with age and during accommodation measured with partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:1597–1601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Dubbelman M, van der Heijde GL, Weeber HA (2005) Change in shape of the aging human crystalline lens with accommodation. Vision Res 45:117–132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Smith G, Atchison DA (1997) The eye and visual optical instruments. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK, pp 778–790

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Chang YC, Liu K, de Freitas C, Pham A et al (2017) Assessment of eye length changes in accommodation using dynamic extended depth OCT. Biomed Opt Express 8:2709–2719

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Duke-Elder SS (1969) Diseases of the lens and vitreous; glaucoma and hypotony. In: Duke-elder SS (ed) system of ophthalmology, vol XI. London, pp 125-142

  45. Goss DA, Van Veen HG, Rainey BB, Feng B (2002) Ocular components measured by keratometry, phakometry, and ultrasonography in emmetropic and myopic optometry students. Optom Vis Sci 80:226–236

    Google Scholar 

  46. Duane A (1912) Normal values of the accommodation at all ages. JAMA 59:1010–1013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Vanderploeg JM (1985) Near visual acuity measurements of space shuttle crewmembers. Aviat Space Environ Med 57:492

    Google Scholar 

  48. Schachar RA, Cudmore DP (1994) The effect of gravity on the amplitude of accommodation. Ann Ophthalmol 26:65–70

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Schachar RA (2016) Gravity does not affect lens position during accommodation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 57:4566–4567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Augousti AT, Pierscionek BK (2016) Gravity does not affect accommodative amplitude. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 57:4570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Schachar RA, Chan RW, Fu M (2011) Viscoelastic properties of fresh human lenses under 40 years of age: implications for the aetiology of presbyopia. Br J Ophthalmol 95:1010–1013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Tscherning M (1904) Physiological optics, 2nd edn. The Keyston, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp 160–189

    Google Scholar 

  53. Fincham EF (1937) Mechanism of accommodation. Br J Ophthalmol 8(supplement):2–80

    Google Scholar 

  54. Schachar RA, Koivula A (2008) The stress on the anterior lens surface during human in vivo accommodation. Br J Ophthalmol 92:348–350

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kirschkamp T, Dunne M, Barry JC (2004) Phakometric measurement of ocular surface radii of curvature, axial separations and alignment in relaxed and accommodated human eyes. Ophthalmic Physiol Optics 24:65–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sokolowska A, Thorn F (2003) Accommodation induced changes in crystalline lens position. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44(E-Abstract #):4072

    Google Scholar 

  57. Schachar RA, Davila C, Pierscionek BK, Chen W, Ward WW (2007) The effect of human in vivo accommodation on crystalline lens stability 91:790-793

  58. Young T (1801) On the mechanism of the eye. Philos Trans R Soc 92:23–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ivanoff A (1956) About the spherical aberration of the eye. J Opt Soc Am 46:901–903

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. He JC, Burns SA, Marcos S (2000) Monochromatic aberrations in the accommodated human eye. Vis Res 40:41–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Ninomiya S, Fujikado T, Kuroda T, Maeda N, Tano Y, Oshika T, Hirohara Y, Mihashi T (2002) Changes of ocular aberration with accommodation. Am J Ophthalmol 134:924–926

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Hazel CA, Cox MJ, Strang NC (2003) Wavefront aberration and its relationship to the accommodative stimulus-response function in myopic subjects. Optom Vis Sci 80:151–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Plainis S, Ginis HS, Pallikaris A (2005) The effect of ocular aberrations on steady state errors of accommodative response. J Vis 5:466–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Li YJ, Choi JA, Kim H, Yu SY, Joo CK (2011) Changes in ocular wavefront aberrations and retinal image quality with objective accommodation. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:835–841

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Zhou X-Y, Wang L, Zhou X-T, Yu Z-Q (2015) Wavefront aberration changes caused by a gradient of increasing accommodation stimuli. Eye 29:115–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Ke B, Mao X, Jiang H, He J, Liu C, Li M, Yuan Y, Wang J (2017) The relationship between high-order aberration and anterior ocular biometry during accommodation in young healthy adults. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 58:5628–5635

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, City Hospital, Poznan, Poland

    Andrzej Grzybowski & Magdalena Gaca-Wysocka

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland

    Andrzej Grzybowski & Magdalena Gaca-Wysocka

  3. Department of Physics, University of Texas in Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA

    Ronald A. Schachar

  4. Byers Eye Institute, Horngren Family Vitreoretinal Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA

    Ira H. Schachar

  5. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Texas in Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA

    Farhad Kamangar

  6. School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

    Barbara K. Pierscionek

Authors
  1. Andrzej Grzybowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronald A. Schachar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Magdalena Gaca-Wysocka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ira H. Schachar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Farhad Kamangar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Barbara K. Pierscionek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald A. Schachar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grzybowski, A., Schachar, R.A., Gaca-Wysocka, M. et al. Mechanism of accommodation assessed by change in precisely registered ocular images associated with concurrent change in auto-refraction. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 256, 395–402 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-017-3843-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-017-3843-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation