Accuracy and intrasession variability of noncycloplegic autorefraction of school-aged children and adolescents

Justyna Kiermasz; Jacek Pniewski

doi:10.1364/JOSAA.487797

Journal of the Optical Society of America A
Vol. 40,
Issue 9,
pp. 1733-1740
(2023)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.487797

Accuracy and intrasession variability of noncycloplegic autorefraction of school-aged children and adolescents

Justyna Kiermasz and Jacek Pniewski

Not Accessible

Your library or personal account may give you access

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Justyna Kiermasz and Jacek Pniewski, "Accuracy and intrasession variability of noncycloplegic autorefraction of school-aged children and adolescents," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 40, 1733-1740 (2023)

Export Citation
- BibTex
- Endnote (RIS)
- HTML
- Plain Text
Citation alert
Save article

Check for updates

Related Topics
Table of Contents Category
- Optics of the Eye
Optics & Photonics Topics
?

The topics in this list come from the Optics and Photonics Topics applied to this article.

About this Article
History
- Original Manuscript: February 15, 2023
- Revised Manuscript: July 18, 2023
- Manuscript Accepted: July 25, 2023
- Published: August 17, 2023
Virtual Issues
Biomedical Optics Express Visual and Physiological Optics, Joint feature issue of Biomedical Optics Express and JOSA A (2023)

JOSA A Joint Feature Issue in Biomedical Optics Express and Journal of the Optical Society of America A: Visual and Physiological Optics (2023)

Abstract

The aims of the study were (1) to compare the accuracy and intrasession variability of noncycloplegic autorefraction (AR) obtained by a photorefractor and conventional and open-field autorefractors and (2) to evaluate the impact of accommodative and binocular vision anomalies on the accuracy of autorefraction. Twenty-nine children and adolescents aged 8–18 years were examined. All instruments gave more myopic results than subjective refraction (SR). Mean differences between the SR and the AR were ${+}{0.52/\! -\! 0.25} \times {96}^\circ$ for the photorefractor, ${+}{0.63/\! -\! 0.31} \times {93}^\circ$ for the conventional autorefractor, and ${+}{0.19/\! -\! 0.26} \times {94}^\circ$ for the open-field instrument. The photorefractor appeared to be the most repeatable. The impact of the examined vision anomalies on the accuracy of autorefraction was not statistically significant.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

Comparison of refractive error measurements by three different models of autorefractors and subjective refraction in young adults

Justyna Wosik, Małgorzata Patrzykont, and Jacek Pniewski
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 36(4) B1-B6 (2019)

Temporal fluctuations in defocus may reverse the acuity loss encountered with induced refractive errors

Sabyasachi Goswami and Shrikant R. Bharadwaj
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 40(11) 2008-2018 (2023)

Influence of power and the time of application of fogging lenses on accommodation

Aina Turull-Mallofré, Carlos E. García-Guerra, Clara Mestre, Meritxell Vilaseca, Jaume Pujol, and Mikel Aldaba
Biomed. Opt. Express 14(10) 5488-5498 (2023)

Previous Article Next Article

Data availability

Data underlying the results presented in this paper are not publicly available at this time but may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request.

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Figures (4)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Tables (4)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Equations (2)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

	Euclidean Distance in $h$ -Space [D]	Mean Difference	Mean Difference in Conventional Form	Variance-Covariance	$p$ -Values^a
SR–A12C ( $N = 23$ )	0.70	$(\begin{matrix} 0.2711 \\ - 0.0119 \\ 0.5158 \end{matrix})$	$+ 0.52 / - 0.25 \times 96^{\circ}$	$(\begin{matrix} 0.1511 & 0.0177 & 0.0934 \\ 0.0177 & 0.0151 & 0.0042 \\ 0.0934 & 0.0042 & 0.0916 \end{matrix})$	0.003
					0.387
					$< 0.001$
SR–ARK-510A ( $N = 29$ )	0.87	$(\begin{matrix} 0.3137 \\ - 0.0256 \\ 0.6256 \end{matrix})$	$+ 0.63 / - 0.31 \times 93^{\circ}$	$(\begin{matrix} 0.2988 & 0.0433 & 0.2630 \\ 0.0433 & 0.0235 & 0.0260 \\ 0.2630 & 0.0260 & 0.3343 \end{matrix})$	0.003
					0.376
					$< 0.001$
SR–NVision-K 5001 ( $N = 29$ )	0.53	$(\begin{matrix} - 0.0654 \\ - 0.0250 \\ 0.1915 \end{matrix})$	$+ 0.19 / - 0.26 \times 94^{\circ}$	$(\begin{matrix} 0.1567 & 0.0138 & 0.1059 \\ 0.0138 & 0.0363 & - 0.0021 \\ 0.1059 & - 0.0021 & 0.1576 \end{matrix})$	0.382
					0.486
					0.015

$F$ ( $p$ -Value^a)	Accommodative Dysfunctions	Binocular Vision Anomalies
A12C	0.22 (0.64)	0.43 (0.51)
ARK-510A	0.48 (0.49)	3.13 (0.09)
NVision-K 5001	0.77 (0.39)	1.62 (0.21)

	SR	A12C	ARK-510A	NVision-K 5001
RE	$0.00 / - 0.25 \times 143^{\circ}$	$- 0.23 / - 0.52 \times 143^{\circ}$	$- 2.15 / - 0.52 \times 149^{\circ}$	$- 0.08 / - 0.39 \times 154^{\circ}$
LE	$+ 0.25$	$- 0.40 / - 0.49 \times 19^{\circ}$	$- 1.27 / - 0.68 \times 27^{\circ}$	$+ 0.06 / - 0.51 \times 33^{\circ}$

	A12C			ARK-510A			NVision-K 5001
Reading	Sph	Cyl	Axis	Sph	Cyl	Axis	Sph	Cyl	Axis
1	−0.75	−0.25	26	0.12	−0.12	17	0.50	−0.37	51
2	−0.25	−0.25	26	0.25	−0.25	23	0.37	−0.12	21
3	0.00	−0.25	25	0.37	−0.12	23	0.62	−0.37	47
4	0.00	−0.25	24	0.37	−0.25	8	0.87	−0.50	67
5	0.00	−0.25	27	0.37	−0.25	16	0.75	−0.12	83
6	0.00	−0.25	14	0.25	−0.12	19	0.62	−0.37	22
7	0.25	−0.25	16	0.12	−0.12	30	0.87	−0.62	87
8	0.00	−0.25	19	0.12	−0.25	19	0.50	−0.12	14
9	0.00	−0.25	19	0.50	−0.12	107	0.37	0.00
10	−0.25	−0.25	34	0.25	−0.25	19	0.50	−0.25	179

	Euclidean Distance in $h$ -Space [D]	Mean Difference	Mean Difference in Conventional Form	Variance-Covariance	$p$ -Values^a
SR–A12C ( $N = 23$ )	0.70	$(\begin{matrix} 0.2711 \\ - 0.0119 \\ 0.5158 \end{matrix})$	$+ 0.52 / - 0.25 \times 96^{\circ}$	$(\begin{matrix} 0.1511 & 0.0177 & 0.0934 \\ 0.0177 & 0.0151 & 0.0042 \\ 0.0934 & 0.0042 & 0.0916 \end{matrix})$	0.003
					0.387
					$< 0.001$
SR–ARK-510A ( $N = 29$ )	0.87	$(\begin{matrix} 0.3137 \\ - 0.0256 \\ 0.6256 \end{matrix})$	$+ 0.63 / - 0.31 \times 93^{\circ}$	$(\begin{matrix} 0.2988 & 0.0433 & 0.2630 \\ 0.0433 & 0.0235 & 0.0260 \\ 0.2630 & 0.0260 & 0.3343 \end{matrix})$	0.003
					0.376
					$< 0.001$
SR–NVision-K 5001 ( $N = 29$ )	0.53	$(\begin{matrix} - 0.0654 \\ - 0.0250 \\ 0.1915 \end{matrix})$	$+ 0.19 / - 0.26 \times 94^{\circ}$	$(\begin{matrix} 0.1567 & 0.0138 & 0.1059 \\ 0.0138 & 0.0363 & - 0.0021 \\ 0.1059 & - 0.0021 & 0.1576 \end{matrix})$	0.382
					0.486
					0.015

Abstract

Data availability

Cited By

Figures (4)

Tables (4)

Equations (2)

Journal of the Optical Society of America A