Accommodation response to Chinese and Latin characters in Chinese-illiterate young adults

Hema Radhakrishnan, Andreas Hartwig, W. Neil Charman, Lourdes Llorente

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    4 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Background: Differences in accommodation when reading Chinese, as compared to Latin, characters have been suggested to have a role in the higher prevalence of myopia in some Asian countries. Yeo and colleagues (Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 156-163) found that, in Chinese-literate children, accommodation was marginally more accurate (by less than 0.05 D), when reading Chinese text. This was attributed to the additional cognitive demand associated with interpreting the more complex Chinese symbols. The present study compared responses to single Chinese and Latin characters, while controlling for cognitive demand. Methods: The monocular accommodative response was measured in Chinese-illiterate adults (10 emmetropes, mean spherical equivalent: -0.07 ± 0.42 D, age: 29.9 ± 4.2 years; 11 myopes, mean spherical equivalent: -4.28 ± 2.84 D, age: 31.7 ± 4.6 years) with an open-field autorefractor. Four Chinese and three Latin characters (approximately 1.15 degrees subtense) were individually presented on a display screen one metre away from the subject, while their vergence was varied over the range zero to 5.00 D using spectacle trial lenses. The slope and the accommodative error index (AEI) were calculated from the accommodative stimulus/response curves (ASRC). Results: No statistically significant differences were found between refractive groups or among characters within the same refractive group in ARSC slopes (Latin: 0.87 ± 0.14 for myopes versus 0.81 ± 0.12 for emmetropes; Chinese: 0.84 ± 0.12 for myopes versus 0.85 ± 0.12 for emmetropes). No significant differences were found between characters in accommodative error index either (Latin, 0.78 ± 0.42 D for myopes versus 1.15 ± 0.72 D for emmetropes; Chinese, 0.74 ± 0.37 D for myopes versus 1.17 ± 0.83 D for emmetropes). However, accommodative error indices and accommodative errors were significantly higher for emmetropes. Conclusion: Under controlled cognitive demand, Chinese and Latin characters elicited similar responses in both individual refractive groups. This study fails to support the hypothesis that development of myopia in some Asian populations is associated with larger lags of accommodation when reading or viewing Chinese characters.

    Original languageEnglish
    JournalClinical and Experimental Optometry
    DOIs
    Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2015

    Fingerprint

    Reading
    Young Adult
    Myopia
    Lenses
    Population

    Keywords

    • Accommodation
    • Accommodation error index
    • Characters
    • Chinese
    • Emmetropes
    • Latin
    • Myopes
    • Myopia
    • Open-field autorefractor
    • Slope

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Ophthalmology
    • Optometry

    Cite this

    Accommodation response to Chinese and Latin characters in Chinese-illiterate young adults. / Radhakrishnan, Hema; Hartwig, Andreas; Charman, W. Neil; Llorente, Lourdes.

    In: Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 2015.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Radhakrishnan, Hema ; Hartwig, Andreas ; Charman, W. Neil ; Llorente, Lourdes. / Accommodation response to Chinese and Latin characters in Chinese-illiterate young adults. In: Clinical and Experimental Optometry. 2015.
    @article{aaeae4f80d2246da8eb3a2ce419c192b,
    title = "Accommodation response to Chinese and Latin characters in Chinese-illiterate young adults",
    abstract = "Background: Differences in accommodation when reading Chinese, as compared to Latin, characters have been suggested to have a role in the higher prevalence of myopia in some Asian countries. Yeo and colleagues (Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 156-163) found that, in Chinese-literate children, accommodation was marginally more accurate (by less than 0.05 D), when reading Chinese text. This was attributed to the additional cognitive demand associated with interpreting the more complex Chinese symbols. The present study compared responses to single Chinese and Latin characters, while controlling for cognitive demand. Methods: The monocular accommodative response was measured in Chinese-illiterate adults (10 emmetropes, mean spherical equivalent: -0.07 ± 0.42 D, age: 29.9 ± 4.2 years; 11 myopes, mean spherical equivalent: -4.28 ± 2.84 D, age: 31.7 ± 4.6 years) with an open-field autorefractor. Four Chinese and three Latin characters (approximately 1.15 degrees subtense) were individually presented on a display screen one metre away from the subject, while their vergence was varied over the range zero to 5.00 D using spectacle trial lenses. The slope and the accommodative error index (AEI) were calculated from the accommodative stimulus/response curves (ASRC). Results: No statistically significant differences were found between refractive groups or among characters within the same refractive group in ARSC slopes (Latin: 0.87 ± 0.14 for myopes versus 0.81 ± 0.12 for emmetropes; Chinese: 0.84 ± 0.12 for myopes versus 0.85 ± 0.12 for emmetropes). No significant differences were found between characters in accommodative error index either (Latin, 0.78 ± 0.42 D for myopes versus 1.15 ± 0.72 D for emmetropes; Chinese, 0.74 ± 0.37 D for myopes versus 1.17 ± 0.83 D for emmetropes). However, accommodative error indices and accommodative errors were significantly higher for emmetropes. Conclusion: Under controlled cognitive demand, Chinese and Latin characters elicited similar responses in both individual refractive groups. This study fails to support the hypothesis that development of myopia in some Asian populations is associated with larger lags of accommodation when reading or viewing Chinese characters.",
    keywords = "Accommodation, Accommodation error index, Characters, Chinese, Emmetropes, Latin, Myopes, Myopia, Open-field autorefractor, Slope",
    author = "Hema Radhakrishnan and Andreas Hartwig and Charman, {W. Neil} and Lourdes Llorente",
    year = "2015",
    doi = "10.1111/cxo.12296",
    language = "English",
    journal = "The Australasian journal of optometry",
    issn = "0817-881X",
    publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Accommodation response to Chinese and Latin characters in Chinese-illiterate young adults

    AU - Radhakrishnan, Hema

    AU - Hartwig, Andreas

    AU - Charman, W. Neil

    AU - Llorente, Lourdes

    PY - 2015

    Y1 - 2015

    N2 - Background: Differences in accommodation when reading Chinese, as compared to Latin, characters have been suggested to have a role in the higher prevalence of myopia in some Asian countries. Yeo and colleagues (Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 156-163) found that, in Chinese-literate children, accommodation was marginally more accurate (by less than 0.05 D), when reading Chinese text. This was attributed to the additional cognitive demand associated with interpreting the more complex Chinese symbols. The present study compared responses to single Chinese and Latin characters, while controlling for cognitive demand. Methods: The monocular accommodative response was measured in Chinese-illiterate adults (10 emmetropes, mean spherical equivalent: -0.07 ± 0.42 D, age: 29.9 ± 4.2 years; 11 myopes, mean spherical equivalent: -4.28 ± 2.84 D, age: 31.7 ± 4.6 years) with an open-field autorefractor. Four Chinese and three Latin characters (approximately 1.15 degrees subtense) were individually presented on a display screen one metre away from the subject, while their vergence was varied over the range zero to 5.00 D using spectacle trial lenses. The slope and the accommodative error index (AEI) were calculated from the accommodative stimulus/response curves (ASRC). Results: No statistically significant differences were found between refractive groups or among characters within the same refractive group in ARSC slopes (Latin: 0.87 ± 0.14 for myopes versus 0.81 ± 0.12 for emmetropes; Chinese: 0.84 ± 0.12 for myopes versus 0.85 ± 0.12 for emmetropes). No significant differences were found between characters in accommodative error index either (Latin, 0.78 ± 0.42 D for myopes versus 1.15 ± 0.72 D for emmetropes; Chinese, 0.74 ± 0.37 D for myopes versus 1.17 ± 0.83 D for emmetropes). However, accommodative error indices and accommodative errors were significantly higher for emmetropes. Conclusion: Under controlled cognitive demand, Chinese and Latin characters elicited similar responses in both individual refractive groups. This study fails to support the hypothesis that development of myopia in some Asian populations is associated with larger lags of accommodation when reading or viewing Chinese characters.

    AB - Background: Differences in accommodation when reading Chinese, as compared to Latin, characters have been suggested to have a role in the higher prevalence of myopia in some Asian countries. Yeo and colleagues (Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 156-163) found that, in Chinese-literate children, accommodation was marginally more accurate (by less than 0.05 D), when reading Chinese text. This was attributed to the additional cognitive demand associated with interpreting the more complex Chinese symbols. The present study compared responses to single Chinese and Latin characters, while controlling for cognitive demand. Methods: The monocular accommodative response was measured in Chinese-illiterate adults (10 emmetropes, mean spherical equivalent: -0.07 ± 0.42 D, age: 29.9 ± 4.2 years; 11 myopes, mean spherical equivalent: -4.28 ± 2.84 D, age: 31.7 ± 4.6 years) with an open-field autorefractor. Four Chinese and three Latin characters (approximately 1.15 degrees subtense) were individually presented on a display screen one metre away from the subject, while their vergence was varied over the range zero to 5.00 D using spectacle trial lenses. The slope and the accommodative error index (AEI) were calculated from the accommodative stimulus/response curves (ASRC). Results: No statistically significant differences were found between refractive groups or among characters within the same refractive group in ARSC slopes (Latin: 0.87 ± 0.14 for myopes versus 0.81 ± 0.12 for emmetropes; Chinese: 0.84 ± 0.12 for myopes versus 0.85 ± 0.12 for emmetropes). No significant differences were found between characters in accommodative error index either (Latin, 0.78 ± 0.42 D for myopes versus 1.15 ± 0.72 D for emmetropes; Chinese, 0.74 ± 0.37 D for myopes versus 1.17 ± 0.83 D for emmetropes). However, accommodative error indices and accommodative errors were significantly higher for emmetropes. Conclusion: Under controlled cognitive demand, Chinese and Latin characters elicited similar responses in both individual refractive groups. This study fails to support the hypothesis that development of myopia in some Asian populations is associated with larger lags of accommodation when reading or viewing Chinese characters.

    KW - Accommodation

    KW - Accommodation error index

    KW - Characters

    KW - Chinese

    KW - Emmetropes

    KW - Latin

    KW - Myopes

    KW - Myopia

    KW - Open-field autorefractor

    KW - Slope

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84945243101&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84945243101&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1111/cxo.12296

    DO - 10.1111/cxo.12296

    M3 - Article

    JO - The Australasian journal of optometry

    JF - The Australasian journal of optometry

    SN - 0817-881X

    ER -