Differences between naïve and expert observers’ vergence and accommodative responses to a range of targets

Purpose: Vergence and accommodation studies often use adult participants with experience of vision science. Reports of infant and clinical responses are generally more variable and of lower gain, with the implication that differences lie in immaturity or sub-optimal clinical characteristics but expert/naïve differences are rarely considered or quantified. Methods: Sixteen undergraduates, naïve to vision science, were individually matched by age, visual acuity, refractive error, heterophoria, stereoacuity and near point of accommodation to second- and third-year orthoptics and optometry undergraduates (‘experts’). Accommodation and vergence responses were assessed to targets moving between 33 cm, 50 cm, 1 m and 2 m using a haploscopic device incorporating a PlusoptiX SO4 autorefractor. Disparity, blur and looming cues were separately available or minimised in all combinations. Instruction set was minimal. Results: In all cases, vergence and accommodation response slopes (gain) were steeper and closer to 1.0 in the expert group (p = 0.001), with the largest expert/naïve differences for both vergence and accommodation being for near targets (p = 0.012). For vergence, the differences between expert and naïve response slopes increased with increasingly open-loop targets (linear trend p = 0.025). Although we predicted that proximal cues would drive additional response in the experts, the proximity-only cue was the only condition that showed no statistical effect of experience. Conclusions: Expert observers provide more accurate responses to near target demand than closely matched naïve observers. We suggest that attention, practice, voluntary and proprioceptive effects may enhance responses in experienced participants when compared to a more typical general population. Differences between adult reports and the developmental and clinical literature may partially reflect expert/naïve effects, as well as developmental change. If developmental and clinical studies are to be compared to adult normative data, uninstructed naïve adult data should be used.

The development of convergence and accommodation

Aim: To review current literature on the development of convergence and accommodation. The accommodation and vergence systems provide the foundation upon which bifoveal binocular single vision develops. Deviations from their normal development not only are implicated in the aetiology of convergence anomalies, accommodative anomalies and strabismus, but may also be implicated in failure of the emmetropisation process. Method: This review considers the problems of researching the development of accommodation and vergence in infants and how infant research has had to differ from adult methods. It then reviews and discusses the implications of current research into the development of both systems and their linkages. Results: Vergence and accommodation develop rapidly in the first months of life, with accommodation changing from relatively fixed myopic focus in the neonatal period to adult-like responses by 4 months of age. Vergence develops gradually and becomes more accurate after 4 months of age, but has been demonstrated in infants well before the age that binocular disparity detection mechanisms are thought to develop. Hypotheses for this early vergence mechanism are discussed. The relationship between accommodation and vergence shows much more variability in infants than adult literature has found, but this apparent adult/infant difference may be partly attributed to methodological differences rather than maturational change alone. Conclusions: Variability and flexibility characterise infant responses. This variability may enable infants to develop a flexible and robust binocular system for later life. Studies of infant visual cue use may give clues to the aetiology of strabismus and refractive error.