Accommodative Function in Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

SIGNIFICANCE: Accommodative responses were significantly poorer in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) compared with age-matched typically developing control subjects, and hypoaccommodation was associated with reduced near visual acuity (NVA) and convergence. PURPOSE: Autism spectrum disorder is a neurodevelopmental disorder with a reported prevalence of 1.1 to 1.5%. Accommodative dysfunction has been noted in other developmental conditions including cerebral palsy and Down syndrome. The aim of this study was to investigate how accommodative accuracy and near visual function in ASD compared with typically developing control subjects. METHODS: This study investigated accommodative function in children with ASD, in conjunction with other vision measures with habitual refractive corrections. Accommodative accuracy was assessed using modified Nott dynamic retinoscopy. Individual accommodative demand and response were calculated incorporating residual refractive error (difference between cycloplegic and habitual refractive state). Near visual measures included NVA, near point of convergence, fusional reserves, and stereoacuity. Cycloplegic autorefraction confirmed refractive error. RESULTS: Accommodative responses were measured from 124 participants with ASD (6 to 17 years old) and 204 age-matched control subjects. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of residual refractive error between groups (P = .10). The prevalence of a clinically significant lag of accommodation was greater in the ASD group compared with control subjects (ASD = 17.4%, control subjects = 4.9%, χ = 13.04, P < .0001). Near visual acuity was significantly reduced in the ASD group with a clinically significant lag of accommodation (P < .01). A few participants (n = 24 control subjects, n = 14 ASD) had uncorrected or undercorrected refractive errors (spherical equivalent refractive error ≥+2.00 D, >1.00 DC), and when these were removed from analysis, there was still an increased prevalence of hypoaccommodation in ASD (14.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Children with ASD were significantly more likely to have accommodative deficits (and associated near visual deficits) in their presenting refractive state than typically developing children. Appraisal of refractive error, accommodation, and NVA should be considered in visual assessment of children with ASD.

Profile of refractive errors in European Caucasian children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder; increased prevalence and magnitude of astigmatism.

PURPOSE: Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by impairment of communication, social interaction and repetitive behaviours. Only a small number of studies have investigated fundamental clinical measures of vision including refractive error. The aim of this study was to describe the refractive profile of a population of children with ASD compared to typically developing (TD) children. METHODS: Refractive error was assessed using the Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 open-field autorefractor following the instillation of cyclopentolate hydrochloride 1% eye drops. RESULTS: A total of 128 participants with ASD (mean age 10.9 ± 3.3 years) and 206 typically developing participants (11.5 ± 3.1 years) were recruited. There was no significant difference in median refractive error, either by spherical equivalent or most ametropic meridian between the ASD and TD groups (Spherical equivalent, Mann-Whitney U307 = 1.15, p = 0.25; Most Ametropic Meridian, U305 = 0.52, p = 0.60). Median refractive astigmatism was -0.50DC (range 0.00 to -3.50DC) for the ASD group and -0.50DC (Range 0.00 to -2.25DC) for the TD group. Magnitude and prevalence of refractive astigmatism (defined as astigmatism ≥1.00DC) was significantly greater in the ASD group compared to the typically developing group (ASD 26%, TD 8%, magnitude U305 = 3.86, p = 0.0001; prevalence (χ12=17.71 , p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to describe the refractive profile of a population of European Caucasian children with ASD compared to a TD population of children. Unlike other neurodevelopmental conditions, there was no increased prevalence of spherical refractive errors in ASD but astigmatic errors were significantly greater in magnitude and prevalence. This highlights the need to examine refractive errors in this population.

Brief Report: Vision in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: What Should Clinicians Expect?

Anomalous visual processing has been described in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) but relatively few studies have profiled visual acuity (VA) in this population. The present study describes presenting VA in children with ASD (n = 113) compared to typically developing controls (n = 206) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in a sub-group of children with ASD (n = 29). There was no statistically significant difference in presenting VA between groups (z = -1.75, p = 0.08); ASD group median VA (interquartile range, IQR) -0.05 logMAR (IQR: -0.125 to 0.025 logMAR) and typically developing control group -0.075 logMAR (IQR: -0.150 to -0.025 logMAR). Median BCVA was -0.175 logMAR (IQR: -0.200 to -0.125 logMAR) for the ASD sub-group. Clinicians should not anticipate reduced VA when assessing children with ASD.

Stereoacuity norms for school-age children using the Frisby stereotest.

BACKGROUND: The Frisby stereotest and the TNO test for stereoscopic vision are popular clinical tests for assessing stereoacuity: however, reference data for school-age children for the Frisby stereotest are limited. This study compared stereoacuity results of both tests in a large sample of typically developing school-age children. METHODS: Primary (elementary school grades 1-6) and post-primary (high school grades 7-11) students aged 6-16 years were recruited and assessed in schools. Stereoacuity thresholds were measured using the Frisby and TNO stereotests. Children with ocular pathology, anisometropia of ≥1.00 D, interocular difference of visual acuity ≥0.2 logMAR, or strabismus were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 212 children were recruited; data for 186 subjects were analyzed. Median Frisby stereoacuity scores were, for crossed disparity, 20 arcsec for primary and 10 arcsec for post-primary children and, for uncrossed disparity, 25 arcsec (primary) and 10 arcsec (post-primary). TNO stereoacuity was 60 arcsec for both age groups. For Frisby stereoacuity, scores of 85 arcsec (crossed) and 170 arcsec (uncrossed) or better were achieved by 95% of primary school children; scores of 85 arcsec (crossed and uncrossed) or better were achieved by 95% of post-primary subjects. A statistically significant difference in median stereoacuity scores was noted across age groups for the Frisby stereotest (crossed: z = 4.67, P < 0.0001; uncrossed: z = 4.67, P < 0.0001). No statistically significant difference in stereoacuity scores was noted with the TNO stereotest (z = 1.35, P = 0.18). A significant weak correlation was found between the Frisby and TNO stereotests (Frisby [crossed], r = 0.21 P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: These data describe normative values for the Frisby stereotest for children aged 6-16 years. Participants recorded significantly better stereoacuity scores with the Frisby stereotest than the TNO stereotest. The Frisby stereotest values are weakly correlated with the TNO stereoacuity test.