Effect of postural variation on near visual function in myopic subjects
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20253594Keywords:
Posture, Amplitude of accommodation, Near point of convergence, MyopiaAbstract
Background: Near visual tasks demand sustained accommodation and convergence, which may vary with body posture. This study examined the effect of sitting, standing and supine positions on amplitude of accommodation (AA) and near point of convergence (NPC) in myopic individuals.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 60 optometry undergraduates aged 19–30 years with mild to moderate myopia. Comprehensive eye examinations were performed and AA and NPC were assessed in three postures. AA was measured monocularly using the push-up method with a Royal Air Force ruler and NPC was measured binocularly with a pen torch and 0.30 logMAR (6/12) letters. Each test was repeated thrice per posture and mean values were analyzed using one-way ANOVA.
Results: Mean AA in the right eye was 8.48±2.94 D (sitting), 7.89±2.74 D (standing) and 7.38±2.17 D (supine), with no significant difference (p=0.077). NPC averaged 5.38±1.15 cm (sitting), 5.38±1.15 cm (standing) and 5.15±1.45 cm (supine), also not significant (p=0.53).
Conclusions: While posture did not significantly influence AA or NPC, a trend toward better accommodative response was seen in the sitting position. These findings indicate that sitting may provide greater visual comfort for myopes during near tasks, highlighting posture’s potential role in visual performance.
Metrics
References
Majumder, C, Afnan, H. Amplitude of accommodation among students of a malaysian private university as assessed using subjective and objective techniques. Korean J Ophthalmol, 2020;34(3):219-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2019.0138
Adler FH, Kaufman PL. Adler's physiology of the eye: clinical application. St. Louis: Mosby. 2003: 41.
Banik A, Darshini P, Gangatharan S, Ashwini KV. Comparison of subjective and objective techniques to evaluate amplitude of accommodation among Indian undergraduate students. Acta Scient Ophthalmol. 2005;8(5):29-34.
Mathebula SD, Ntsoane MD, Makgaba NT. Comparison of the amplitude of accommodation determined subjectively and objectively in South African university students. Afr Vis Eye Health. 2018;77(1):1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/aveh.v77i1.437
Anderson, HA, Stuebing, KK. Subjective versus objective accommodative amplitude: preschool to presbyopia. Optom Vis Sci. 2014:91(11):1290-301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000000402
Momeni-Moghaddam, H, Kundart, J, Askarizadeh, F. Comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitudes. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014; 62(6):683-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.126990
Banik A, Ganashree S. Accommodation and convergence with spherical and toric soft contact lenses in astigmatic eyes. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye. 2025;10:2489. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2025.102489
Rempel D, Willms K, Anshl J, Sheedy J. The effect of visual display distance on eye accommodation, head posture and vision and neck symptoms. Human factors the journal of the human factors and Ergon Society. 2007;49:830-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1518/001872007X230208
Scheiman M, Wick, B. Clinical management of binocular vision: heterophoric, accommodative and eye movement disorders. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2020.
Majumder C, Nadiea E, Hoslan BT, Ghosh P. Comparison of Amplitude of Accommodation in different reading posture. JOJ Ophthalmol. 2018;6(3):2473-5477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19080/JOJO.2018.06.555689
McBrien, NA, Millodot M. Amplitude of accommodation and refractive error. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1986;27(7):1187-90.
Hasemi H, Mojganpakbin, Ali B. Near point of convergence and Accommodation in a population of university students in Iran. J Ophtha Vision Res. 2019;14(3):306-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/jovr.v14i3.4787
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
