%0 Journal Article
%T Comparing Accommodative Function between the Dominant and Non-Dominant Eye
%A Feryal Zeried
%J Journal of Biochemical Technology
%@ 0974-2328
%D 2026
%V 17
%N 2
%R 10.51847/zOgpvCPlPM
%P 167-175
%X In this study, we aimed to compare the accommodative function between the dominant and non-dominant eye. Thirty-two female students [the mean (SD) age was 22.12 (0.96) years, range 18-25] from King Saud University were selected. The method design was a prospective cross-sectional study. The hole-in-the-card test has been used to determine the dominant eye. Visual acuity at near and distant was measured. Thereafter, the accommodative function has been measured by using flipper lenses to assess accommodative facility and the push-up method to assess accommodative amplitude. The right eye was dominant in 18 subjects (56.25%). The mean (SD) deviation in exophoric subjects (N =12 [37.5 %]) and esophoria subjects (N =4 [12.5 %]) was -4.25 (1.21) and 1.75 (0.96), respectively. All other subjects (N =16 [50 %]) were orthophoria at near. The mean (SD) of accommodative amplitude and accommodative facility in the dominant eye were 9.79 (3.14) diopters and 10.33 (5.01) cycles per minute, respectively. The mean (SD) of accommodative amplitude and accommodative facility in the non-dominant eye were 9.92 (3.01) diopters and 10.12 (5.09) cycles per minute, respectively. The mean (SD) difference in accommodative amplitude and accommodative facility between the dominant and non-dominant eye was -0.13 (0.61) diopters (P=0.225) and 0.21 (3.34) cycles per minute (P=0.728), respectively. Accommodative amplitude (AA) and accommodative facility (AF) did not reach statistical significance; their means showed a slight difference between the two eyes.
%U https://jbiochemtech.com/article/comparing-accommodative-function-between-the-dominant-and-non-dominant-eye-rtgovwd2wnhneo4