Abstract：Objective To investigate the differences in monocular and binocular accommodation responses between asthenopes and asymptomatic individuals with different near heterophoria. Methods A total of 99 young subjects treated in the Ophthalmology Department of Characteristics Medical Center of Chinese People's Armed Police Force from March 2024 to May 2024 were selected and divided into symptomatic group (33 cases) and asymptomatic group (66 cases) according to the Collection Deficiency Symptom Survey Score Questionnaire (CISS). The Van-Greafe method was used to measure the short-range horizontal dissociated heterophoria, and the open-field auto-refractometer was used to measure the accommodative responses under monocular and binocular vision at a test distance of 40cm. The differences of the accommodative responses in the monocular and binocular states between the two groups were compared and statistically analyzed. Results The accommodative lag was the highest in the esophoria group under binocular vision, followed by the normal group, and the lowest in the exophoria group. There was a significant difference in the difference of accommodative lag between monocular and binocular vision between different heterophoria groups(P<0.05). In addition, in the esophoria group, the difference in accommodative lag between monocular and binocular vision was greater in the symptomatic group than in the asymptomatic group(P<0.05), but this difference was not significant in the exophoria group(P＞0.05). Conclusions The type of heterophoria in short distance can affect the accommodative responses under binocular vision, with the smallest amount of accommodative lag in exophoria patients and the largest in esophoria patients. Moreover, regardless of esophoria or exophoria, patients with asthenopia symptoms have a greater difference in accommodative lag between monocular and binocular vision than those without asthenopia symptoms, which may be one of the reasons for asthenopia in patients with heterophoria in short distance.
邹炳亮, 马敏旺, 张志鑫. 近距不同隐斜条件下视疲劳与无症状人群单双眼调节反应的差异[J]. 武警医学, 2024, 35(11): 976-980.
ZOU Bingliang, MA Minwang, ZHANG Zhixin. Differences in accommodative response under monocular and binocular conditions in young asthenopes and asymptomatic individuals with heterophoria. Med. J. Chin. Peop. Armed Poli. Forc., 2024, 35(11): 976-980.
Tosha C, Borsting E, Ridder W H, et al. Accommodation response and visual discomfort[J].Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2009, 29(6): 625-633.
[2]
Fry G A. Significance of fused cross cylinder test[J]. Optom Wkly,1940, 31: 16-19.
[3]
Morgan M W. The clinical aspects of accommodation and convergence[J].Am J Optom Physiol Opt & AOA, 1944, 21.
[4]
Rouse M, Borsting E, Mitchell GL, et al. Validity of the convergence insufficiency symptom survey: a confirmatory study[J]. Optom Vis Sci,2009,86(4):357-63.
[5]
Nijil S, Avinash P, Avik R. A comparison of near-dissociated heterophoria tests in free space[J].Clin Exp Optom, 2012, 95(6):638-642.
[6]
Rao D P, Negiloni K, Gurunathan S, et al. Validation of a simple-to-use, affordable, portable, wavefront aberrometry-based auto refractometer in the adult population: a prospective study[J]. BMC Ophthalmol,2022,22(1):498.
[7]
Nicola S L, Hema R, Fiona E C, et al. IMI accommodation and binocular vision in myopia development and progression[J].Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2021, 62(5):4.
[8]
Efthymia P, Anna-Bettina H, Argyrios T, et al. The role of accommodative function in myopic development: a review[J].Semin Ophthalmol, 2021, 37(4):455-461.
[9]
Aldaba M, Vilaseca M, Arjona M, et al. Age-related changes in accommodation measured with a double-pass system[J].Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2013, 33(4): 508-515.
Gwiazda J, Danielle L, Susan A, et al.Progressive-addition lenses versus single-vision lenses for slowing progression of myopia in children with high accommodative lag and near esophoria[J]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2011, 52(5): 2749-2757.
[12]
Sreenivasan V, Irving E L, Bobier W R. Effect of heterophoria type and myopia on accommodative and vergence responses during sustained near activity in children[J].Vision Res, 2012, 57:9-17.
[13]
Del Águila-Carrasco A J, Kruger P B, Lara F, et al. Aberrations and accommodation[J]. Clin Exp Optom,2020,103(1):95-103.
[14]
Read S A, Alonso-Caneiro D, Hoseini-Yazdi H, et al. Objective measures of gaze behaviors and the visual environment during near-work tasks in young adult myopes and emmetropes[J]. Transl Vis Sci Technol,2023,12(11):18.
[15]
Gambra E, Wang Y, Yuan J, et al. Dynamic accommodation with simulated targets blurred with high order aberrations[J].Vision Res, 2010, 50(19): 1922-1927.
[16]
Oliveira S, Jorge J, González-Méijome J M. Dynamic accommodative response to different visual stimuli (2D vs 3D) while watching television and while playing Nintendo 3DS Console[J]. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2012, 32(5): 383-389.
[17]
Goss D A, Rainey B B. Relationship of accommodative response and nearpoint phoria in a sample of myopic children[J].Optom Vis Sci, 1999, 76(5):292-294.
[18]
Schor C. The influence of interactions between accommodation and convergence on the lag of accommodation[J].Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2000, 19(2):134-50.
[19]
Satoshi H, Fumitaka N, Hiroshi O. Accuracy of accommodation in heterophoric patients: testing an interaction model in a large clinical sample[J].Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2005, 25(6):582-91
[20]
Beatriz R, Jesús V, Rubén M, et al. Accommodative dynamics and attention: the influence of manipulating attentional capacity on accommodative lag and variability[J].Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2020, 40(4): 510-518.
[21]
Meng C, Zhang Y, Wang S. Changes in accommodation and convergence function after refractive surgery in myopic patients[J]. Eur J Ophthalmol,2023,33(1):29-34.
[22]
Hamed M-M, David A G, Mina S. Accommodative response under monocular and binocular conditions as a function of phoria in symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects[J].Clin Exp Optom, 2013, 97(1): 36-42.
[23]
Momeni-Moghaddam H, Goss D A, Sobhani M. Accommodative response under monocular and binocular conditions as a function of phoria in symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects[J]. Clin Exp Optom,2014,97(1):36-42.
2024, Vol. 35 
