[Accommodation to Monochromatic Targets in People with Different Color Vision Statuses].
Yishan Qian,Jia Huang,Renyuan Chu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0412-4081.2015.01.005
2015-01-01
Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To compare the accommodation response (AR) to monochromatic targets in subjects with different color vision statuses, and to investigate the role of color vision in the control of accommodation and emmetropization.METHODS:It was a case-control study. Accommodation was measured with a dynamic infrared optometer while subjects [17 protans, 47 deutans, and 23 normals; mean age: (20.0 ± 4.4) years] viewed a (1) red on black or (2) green on black vertical square-wave gratings of iso-luminance (3 cycles/deg; 0.9 contrast) in a Badal optic system. The grating stepped 1.00 D towards the eye from an initial position of 0 D until 5.00 D.RESULTS:With red-black targets, the AR in the protans (AR = 1.98 D) was worse than that in the normals (AR = 2.55 D) when the accommodation stimulus (AS) was 4.00 D (LSD, P = 0.031). The AR in the deutans were worse than that in the normals when the AS was 3.00, 4.00, and 5.00 D (3.00 D: 1.23 D vs. 1.69 D, P = 0.002; 4.00 D: 1.89 D vs. 2.55 D, P = 0.002; 5.00 D: 2.40 D vs. 3.17 D, P = 0.003). With green-black targets, the AR in the protans were worse than that in the normals when the AS was 3.00 and 4.00 D (3.00 D: 1.13 D vs. 1.61 D, P = 0.004; 4.00 D: 1.80 D vs. 2.34 D, P = 0.021). In the deutans, the AR was worse with stimuli of 3.00, 4.00, and 5.00 D (3.00 D: 1.21 D vs. 1.61 D, P = 0.003; 4.00 D: 1.65 D vs. 2.34 D, P < 0.001; 5.00 D: 2.36 D vs. 2.93 D, P = 0.007). No significant differences between the protans and deutans were found for all the stimulus conditions. In the protans, accommodation to red-black targets was better than that to green-black targets when the stimulus was 2.00, 3.00, and 5.00 D (2.00 D: t = -2.81, P = 0.013; 3.00 D: t = -4.55, P < 0.001; 5.00 D: t = -3.15, P = 0.006). In the deutans, accommodation to red-black targets was better than that to green-black targets when the stimulus was 4.00 D (t = -2.19, P = 0.034). In the normals, accommodation to red-black targets were better than that to green-black targets when the stimulus was 2.00, 4.00, and 5.00 D (2.00 D: t = -2.57, P = 0.017; 4.00 D, t = -2.67, P = 0.014; 5.00 D: t = -2.15, P = 0.043).CONCLUSIONS:Individuals with a color vision deficiency tend to have a larger accommodative lag than normals. Red targets tend to induce better accommodation response than green ones. Color vision may play a role in the control of accommodation and emmetropization.