ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Impact of Stimulus Size and Cognitive Demand on Accommodation and Pupil Size in Children and Adults.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2026. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeStimulus size and cognitive demand have previously been used to elicit changes in accommodation and pupil size, but their separate effects remain unclear. This study assessed how target size (6/15, 6/30) and cognitive demand (passive or active viewing) impact accommodation and pupil size.
methodsTwenty-three children (mean age = 8.3±3.1 years) and 21 adults (mean age = 22.2±3.9 years) with age-normal visual acuity viewed 6/15 or 6/30 sized numbers monocularly. In passive conditions, participants were asked to simply look at the numbers, whereas in active conditions, participants silently added sets of numbers. Children who were too young to add answered questions about the numbers. Accommodation and pupil size were measured continuously at 50 Hz using the PowerRef 3. A repeated-measures analysis of variance with factors of age group (children, adults), cognition (passive, active) and stimulus size (6/15, 6/30) was performed on accommodative measurements and pupil size.
resultsAccommodative measurements were significantly greater in active than passive conditions (p = 0.005), but this effect was only observed in children (p < 0.001). Pupil size was significantly larger during active than passive viewing conditions across both age groups (p < 0.001). Stimulus size did not modulate accommodation or pupil size significantly (p > 0.05).
conclusionCognitive demand, but not stimulus size, increased accommodation in children in the present study. These findings suggest that task instruction can significantly impact accommodation, but, relative to larger targets, smaller targets may not be associated with greater accommodative measurements in clinical or research settings.
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.