Effects of longitudinal chromatic aberration on accommodation and emmetropization

PURPOSE Less accommodation was found when human subjects read in blue (peak at about 440 nm) than when they read in red light (above 600 nm; [Kroger & Binder, British Journal of Ophthalmology 84 (2000) 890]). On the other hand, emmetropization in chickens did not appear to compensate for the chromatic defocus (385 nm versus 665 nm; [Rohrer, Schaeffel & Zrenner, Journal of Physiology 449 (1992) 363]). The apparently contradictory result was studied in more detail in humans and chickens. METHODS Accommodation was measured with an eccentric infrared photorefractor, the PowerRefractor, in human subjects reading under quasi-monochromatic illumination conditions. Chickens were refracted in quasi-monochromatic ambient illumination but with no particular fixation target. In a second experiment, they were also raised in monochromatic light for two days and subsequently refracted both in complete darkness, in monochromatic light, and in white light, both without and with cycloplegia. RESULTS Consistent with the initial report by Kroger and Binder [British Journal of Ophthalmology 84 (2000) 890], accommodation in human subjects was found to shift in accordance with the chromatic aberration function. An immediate shift in accommodation tonus was also found in the chickens when they were refracted under red and in blue ambient illumination (average difference between refractions in both conditions: 1.26+/-0.54 D, p<0.001 paired t-test). This value is close to the chromatic focus difference between the two wavelengths (1.5 D [Mandelman & Sivak, Vision Research 23 (1983) 1555]). When chickens were raised in blue or red light for two days, and their refractions were subsequently measured in complete darkness, they showed also a difference in refractions (1.41+/-1.00 D; ANOVA: p<0.0012, post hoc t-test: at least p<0.05 among different groups). This difference was no longer significant when they were refracted in white light but became again significant when they were cyclopleged (0.57+/-0.58 D, p=0.039, unpaired t-test). The latter observation makes it unlikely that the difference resulted just from a shift in the resting tonus of accommodation. CONCLUSIONS (1) Imposed chromatic defocus produces a shift in accommodation tonus in both humans and chickens which is, in the case of the chicken, followed by a shift in cycloplegic refractive state into the same direction, (2) the difference to the previous study by Rohrer, Schaeffel and Zrenner [Journal of Physiology 449 (1992) 363] can be explained from the fact that shorter wavelengths were used than in the present study, at which emmetropization was no longer functional and, (3) the small amplitude and the variability of the shifts in refraction do not allow clear statements about the role of the "lag of accommodation" in refractive development but they show that several cone types contribute to emmetropization.