• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.11 no.9
• /
• pp.3406-3411
• /
• 2010

Assessment of the accommodative response is an essential part of the optometric examination. This study measured objectively the accommodation responses those were measured by Autorefractor, MEM retinoscopy and Nott dynamic retinoscopy, and investigate the correlation and difference the results. Twenty-seven college students with normal visual acuity aged 19 to 29 years (mean $22.7{\pm}2.43$ years) participated in this study. Their accommodative responses to accommodative demand of 4D (25cm) were measured with Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 Autorefractor, MEM retinoscopy and Nott dynamic retinoscopy. The accommodative responses to accommodative demand of 4D were $3.70{\pm}0.25D$ by Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 Autorefractor, $3.58{\pm}0.30D$ by MEM retinoscopy and $3.77{\pm}0.29D$ by Nott dynamic retinoscopy, respectively. There were high correlations among the three techniques (p<0.05). MEM retinoscopy was measured $0.19{\pm}0.13D$ lower than Nott dynamic retinoscopy (p<0.05) and it was measured $0.12{\pm}0.24D$ lower than Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 Autorefractor (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between Nott dynamic retinoscopy and Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 Autorefractor (p>0.05). MEM retinoscopy showed lesser accommodative responses than Nott dynamic retinoscopy and Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 Autorefractor. Author suggest that Nott dynamic retinoscopy may use Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 Autorefractor interchangeably to evaluate accommodative responses expect MEM retinoscopy.