ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2026
Effect of Binocularity and Depth on Static and Dynamic Accommodation Responses in Young Children.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal Changes in Choroidal Thickness Across the Eye in Young Children With Premyopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Baseline metrics that may predict future myopia in young children.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine how binocular viewing and real depth influence accommodation in childhood, and whether these effects vary with refractive error (M), axial length (AXL), or future myopia. Methods: Children with emmetropia (N = 92, 7.42 years, range = 6.58-8.33; cycloplegic M = +1.01 D, range = 0.62-1.42) completed accommodation testing every 6 months (3 years, 7 visits). In visits (V) 1 to 3, accommodation was assessed only under monocular conditions (flat stimulus). Beginning at V4, two conditions were added: flat binocular and 3D-depth binocular. This analysis includes V4 to V7, enabling longitudinal within-child comparisons across conditions. Static (40 cm) and dynamic (1-4 D sinusoidal) accommodation was recorded with an open-field autorefractor. Linear mixed-effects models compared responses among viewing conditions, testing moderation by age, M, AXL, and myopia outcome. Results: Binocular viewing increased dynamic amplitude (Amp; Δ ≈ 0.45 D, P < 0.01) and lengthened dynamic phase (Δ ≈ 0.12 seconds, P < 0.01) relative to monocular. It also modestly increased static accommodation response (AR) and reduced lag (both Δ ≈ 0.10 D, P < 0.01). Depth cues had no effect on dynamic accommodation (P > 0.25), but improved static responses with lower lag (Δ ≈ 0.09 D, P < 0.01) and higher AR (Δ ≈ 0.09 D, P < 0.01) under 3D viewing. M significantly moderated several binocular and depth effects (P ≤ 0.01), but AXL did not. Myopia outcome groups did not differ overall (P > 0.16), but showed significant depth × outcome interactions were found for lag (P = 0.02) and AR (P = 0.03). Conclusions: Binocular and depth cues enhance accommodative performance in children and these effects vary with M (more hyperopic children show greater benefit from binocular and depth cues). Children who later became myopic demonstrated reduced benefit from depth cues, suggesting altered cue utilization may precede myopia onset.
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.