ArticleJournal of vision2024
Understanding accommodative control in the clinic: Modeling latency and amplitude for uncorrected refractive error, presbyopia and cycloplegia.
Article in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accommodation is the process of adjusting the eye's optical power so as to focus at different distances. Uncorrected refractive error and/or functional presbyopia mean that sharp focus may not be achievable for some distances, so observers experience sustained defocus. Here, we identify a problem with current models of accommodative control: They predict excessive internal responses to stimuli outside accommodative range, leading to unrealistic adaptation effects. Specifically, after prolonged exposure to stimuli outside range, current models predict long latencies in the accommodative response to stimuli within range, as well as unrealistic dynamics and amplitudes of accommodative vergence innervation driven by the accommodative neural controller. These behaviors are not observed empirically. To solve this issue, we propose that the input to blur-driven accommodation is not retinal defocus, but correctable defocus. Predictive models of accommodative control already estimate demand from sensed defocus, using a realistic "virtual plant" to estimate accommodation. Correctable defocus can be obtained by restricting this demand to values physically attainable by the eye. If we further postulate that correctable defocus is computed using an idealized virtual plant that retains a young accommodative range, we can explain why accommodative-convergence responses are observed for stimuli that are too near-but not too far-to focus on. We model cycloplegia as a change in gain, and postulate a form of neural myopia to explain the additional relaxation of accommodation often seen with cycloplegia. This model produces plausible predictions for the accommodative response and accommodative convergence signal in a wide range of clinically relevant situations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.