OSA's Digital Library

Journal of the Optical Society of America

Journal of the Optical Society of America

  • Vol. 66, Iss. 2 — Feb. 1, 1976
  • pp: 138–142

Effects of luminance and stimulus distance on accommodation and visual resolution

Chris A. Johnson  »View Author Affiliations


JOSA, Vol. 66, Issue 2, pp. 138-142 (1976)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.66.000138


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (676 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

Measurements of accommodation and visual resolution were obtained at a number of luminance levels and stimulus distances. With reductions in luminance the eye approached a "fixed-focus" condition of accommodation for intermediate distances, resulting in successively larger errors in accommodation for both near and far stimuli. The visual resolution values were initially affected by both the luminance and distance of the stimulus. Subsequent measurements of resolution, following the correction of accommodative errors, were found to be independent of the stimulus distance. The findings are discussed with regard to the problems of "night myopia" and variations in visual resolution with stimulus distance.

© 1976 Optical Society of America

Citation
Chris A. Johnson, "Effects of luminance and stimulus distance on accommodation and visual resolution," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 66, 138-142 (1976)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?URI=josa-66-2-138


Sort:  Author  |  Journal  |  Reset

References

  1. N. Maskelyne, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London 79, 256 (1789).
  2. G. G. Heath, Am. J. Optom. 33, 513 (1956).
  3. C. A. Johnson, Effects of Luminance and Stimulus Distance on Accommodation and Visual Acuity, doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1974).
  4. H. A. Knoll, Am. J. Optom. 29, 69 (1952).
  5. M. Kooman, R. Scolnick, and R. Tousey, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 41, 80 (1951).
  6. J. R. Levene, R. Soc. London Notes Rep., 20, 100 (1965).
  7. J. Mellerio, Vision Res. 6, 217 (1966).
  8. M. W. Morgan, Am. J. Optom. 34, 347 (1957).
  9. F. M. Toates, Physiol. Rev. 52, 828 (1972).
  10. C. R. Cavonius and R. Hilz, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 63, 929 (1973).
  11. R. T. Hennessy and W. Richards, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 65, 97 (1975).
  12. K. N. Ogle, Optics (2nd ed.) (Thomas, Springfield, III., 1968), p. 226.
  13. At large angular rotations (i.e., approaching 90°) the spatial distribution of light transmitted by the grating target departs from a true sinusoidal representation. Hence, rotations greater than approximately 70° were avoided in this study.
  14. W. R. Baldwin and W. B. Stover, Am. J. Optom. 45, 143 (1968).
  15. R. T. Hennessy and H. W. Leibowitz, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 60, 1700 (1970); Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. 4, 237 (1972). (1972).
  16. E. Ingelstam and S. I. Ragnarsson, Vision Res. 12, 411 (1972).
  17. H. A. Knoll, Am. J. Optom. 43, 415 (1966).
  18. W. N. Charman, Am. J. Optom. Physiol. Opt. 51, 832 (1974).
  19. Due to the chromatic aberration of the eye, it was necessary to apply a correction for the wavelength of the laser light to the accommodation data. With a reference wavelength of 560 nm the correction [according to the tables of R. E. Bedford and G. Wyszecki, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 47, 564 (1957)] amounted to -0.326 D.
  20. T. N. Cornsweet, Am. J. Psychol. 75, 485 (1962).
  21. S. Shlaer, J. Gen. Physiol. 21, 165 (1937).
  22. A. S. Patel, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56, 689 (1966).
  23. In order to avoid changes in the accommodative stimulus situation, accommodative error was not corrected with lenses. Instead, the grating target was placed at the distance of the observer's accommodative response. This did not affect the accommodative stimulus situation, since the exposure duration of the grating was 250 ms.
  24. M. Alpern and H. David, Ind. Med. Surg. 27, 551 (1958).
  25. F. W. Campbell, J. Physiol. (London) 123, 357 (1954).
  26. G. Wald and D. R. Griffin, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 37, 321 (1947).
  27. E. F. Fincham, Br. J. Ophthalmol. 35, 381 (1951).
  28. E. F. Fincham, Vision Res. 1, 425 (1962).
  29. M. W. Morgan, Am. J. Optom. 21, 183 (1944).
  30. M. C. Nadell and H. A. Knoll, Am. J. Optom. 33, 24 (1956).
  31. J. M. Otero, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 41, 942 (1951).
  32. H. A. W. Schober, Optik (Weiman) 11, 282 (1954).
  33. G. Westheimer and S. M. Blair, Vision Res. 13, 1035 (1973).
  34. H. R. Blackwell, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 38, 1097 (1948).
  35. L. L. Sloan, Ophthalmol. Rev. 45, 704 (1951).
  36. G. Westheimer, Ann. Rev. Psychol. 16, 359 (1965).
  37. E. Aulhorn and H. Harms, Visual Perimetry, in Handbook of Sensory Physiology Vol. VII/4, edited by Hurvich and Jameson, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1972).
  38. I. Borish, Clinical Refraction (3rd ed.) (Professional Press, Chicago, 1970).
  39. J. M. Enoch, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 48, 392 (1958).
  40. J. M. Enoch, R. N. Sunga, and E. Bachman, Am. J. Ophthalmol. 70, 113 (1970).
  41. F. Fankhauser and J. M. Enoch, Arch. Ophthalmol. 68, 120 (1962).
  42. H. W. Leibowitz, C. A. Johnson, and E. Isabelle, Science 177, 1207 (1972).

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited