Stimulus Unpredictability in Time, Magnitude, and Direction on Accommodation

Abstract

SIGNIFICANCE The effect of predictability in changes of time, magnitude, and direction of the accommodation demand on the accommodation response latency and its magnitude are insignificant, which suggests that repetitive accommodative tasks such as the clinical accommodative facility test may not be influenced by potential anticipation effects. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of stimulus' time, magnitude, and direction predictability, as well as their interactions, on accommodation latency and response magnitude. METHODS Monocular accommodative response and latency were measured in 12 young subjects for nine different conditions where the stimulus accommodative demand changed several times in a steplike fashion for a period of 120 seconds. Each change in accommodative demand could have different time duration (i.e., 1, 2, or 3 seconds), magnitude (1, 2, or 3 diopters), and/or direction (i.e., accommodation or disaccommodation). All conditions were created permuting the factors of time, magnitude, and direction with two levels each: random and not random. The baseline condition was a step signal from 0 to 2 diopters persisting for 2 seconds in both accommodative demands. After each condition, subjects were asked to provide a score from 1 to 5 in their perceived predictability. RESULTS Friedman test conducted on the perceived predictability of each condition resulted in statistically significant differences between the nine conditions (χ2 = 56.57, P < .01). However, repeated-measures analysis of variance applied to latency and accommodative response magnitude did not show significant differences (P > .05). In addition, no correlation was found between the perceived predictability scores and both latency and accommodative response magnitudes between the most predictable and the most unpredictable conditions. CONCLUSIONS Subjects were able to perceptually notice whether the stimulus was predictable or not, although our results indicate no significant effect of stimuli predictability on either the accommodation latency or its magnitude.

Seeing the future: Predictive control in neural models of ocular accommodation

“…For example, if the demand is a square wave, jumping between two values with a constant period, accommodation develops a very short latency or even changes in anticipation ( Krishnan et al, 1973 ). How or whether this prediction is achieved is beyond the scope of this article; it may be performed by the cerebellum ( Ohtsuka & Sawa, 1997 ; Popa & Ebner, 2019 ) or it may not actually occur ( Águila-Carrasco & Marín-Franch, 2021 ; Otero, Aldaba, Díaz-Doutón, Vera-Diaz, & Pujol, 2019 ). The different possibilities can be modeled with the Demand Predictor block ( Figure 4 ).…”

Seeing the future: predictive control in neural models of ocular accommodation

“…For example, if the demand is a square wave, jumping between two values with a constant period, accommodation develops a very short latency or even changes in anticipation (Krishnan et al, 1973). How or whether this prediction is achieved is beyond the scope of this paper; it may be performed by the cerebellum (Ohtsuka & Sawa, 1997; Popa & Ebner, 2019) or it may not actually occur (Águila-Carrasco & Marín-Franch, 2021; Otero et al, 2019). The different possibilities can be modelled with the Demand Predictor block (Figure 4).…”