Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 8, 2026

Quantification of Oculomotor Responses and Accommodation Through Instrumentation and Analysis Toolboxes
08:27

Quantification of Oculomotor Responses and Accommodation Through Instrumentation and Analysis Toolboxes

Published on: March 3, 2023

Static and dynamic accommodation measured using the WAM-5500 Autorefractor.

Dorothy M Win-Hall1, Jamie Houser, Adrian Glasser

  • 1College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204-2020, USA.

Optometry and Vision Science : Official Publication of the American Academy of Optometry
|September 21, 2010
PubMed
Summary

Static and dynamic accommodation measurements showed slight differences at higher stimulus demands, not due to instrument error. Dynamic measurements may offer additional insights beyond response amplitude.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Development of an in vitro model to study the biological effects of blinking.

The ocular surface·2018
Same author

Special Report: American Academy of Ophthalmology Task Force Consensus Statement for Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses.

Ophthalmology·2016
Same author

Special Report: American Academy of Ophthalmology Task Force Recommendations for Test Methods to Assess Accommodation Produced by Intraocular Lenses.

Ophthalmology·2016
Same author

Special Report: The American Academy of Ophthalmology Task Force for Developing Novel End Points for Premium Intraocular Lenses Introduction.

Ophthalmology·2016
Same author

Special Report: American Academy of Ophthalmology Task Force Summary Statement for Measurement of Tilt, Decentration, and Chord Length.

Ophthalmology·2016
Same author

Special Report: American Academy of Ophthalmology Task Force Recommendations for Specular Microscopy for Phakic Intraocular Lenses.

Ophthalmology·2016

Area of Science:

  • Ophthalmology
  • Vision Science
  • Physiological Optics

Background:

  • Accurate measurement of accommodation is crucial for understanding visual function.
  • The Grand Seiko WR-5500 (WAM) offers both static and dynamic accommodation assessment.
  • Comparing these modes is essential for validating its clinical utility.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare static and dynamic accommodation measurements using the Grand Seiko WR-5500 (WAM).
  • To evaluate the performance of the WR-5500 in young, phakic subjects.

Main Methods:

  • Fifteen young, phakic subjects (20-28 years) participated.
  • Accommodation was stimulated using printed text at varying distances.
  • Static and 5-Hz dynamic recordings were compared using ANOVA and Bland-Altman analysis.

More Related Videos

Comparison of Agreement and Accuracy using Binocular Wavefront Optometer with Autorefractor and Phoropter
05:14

Comparison of Agreement and Accuracy using Binocular Wavefront Optometer with Autorefractor and Phoropter

Published on: September 16, 2025

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 8, 2026

Quantification of Oculomotor Responses and Accommodation Through Instrumentation and Analysis Toolboxes
08:27

Quantification of Oculomotor Responses and Accommodation Through Instrumentation and Analysis Toolboxes

Published on: March 3, 2023

Comparison of Agreement and Accuracy using Binocular Wavefront Optometer with Autorefractor and Phoropter
05:14

Comparison of Agreement and Accuracy using Binocular Wavefront Optometer with Autorefractor and Phoropter

Published on: September 16, 2025

Main Results:

  • Static and dynamic accommodation measurements showed no significant difference at low stimulus demands (<5.00 D).
  • Significant differences were observed at higher stimulus amplitudes (p = 0.0027).
  • Pupil diameter decreased with increasing accommodative demand.

Conclusions:

  • Slight differences in accommodation response amplitudes were noted between static and dynamic modes.
  • These differences are attributed to individual accommodative responses, not instrument limitations.
  • Dynamic assessment may provide supplementary information on accommodative function and pupil response.