Convergence insufficiency (CI) is a common binocular vision (BV) disorder characterized by difficulty in maintaining motor fusion at near, which affects approximately 7.5 percent of the population. Diagnostic criteria for the disorder are inconsistent, ranging from one to many clinical signs. Methodology for clinical tests is inconsistent in measurement technique, visual targets, required repetitions, and normative values.

Background The VX120 (Visionix Luneau, France) is a novel multi-diagnostic platform that combines Hartmann–Shack based autorefraction, Placido-disk based corneal-topography and anterior segment measurements made with a stationary-Scheimpflug camera. We investigate the agreement between different parameters measured by the VX120 with accepted or gold-standard techniques to test if they are interchangeable, as well as to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility. Methods The right-eyes of healthy subjects were included in the study. Autorefraction of the VX120 was compared to subjective refraction. Agreement of anterior segment parameters was compared to the Sirius (CSO, Italy) including autokeratometry, central corneal thickness (CCT), iridiocorneal angle (IA). Inter and intra-test repeatability of the above parameters was assessed. Results were analyzed using Bland and Altman analyses. Results A total of 164 eyes were evaluated. The mean difference between VX120 autorefraction and subjective refraction for sphere, spherical equivalent (SE), and cylinder was 0.01 ± 0.43 D, 0.14 ± 0.47 D, and −0.26 ± 0.30 D, respectively and high correlation was found to all parameter (r > 0.75) except for J45 (r = 0.61). The mean difference between VX120 and the Sirius system for CCT, IA, and keratometry (k1 and k2) was −3.51 ± 8.64 μm, 7.6 ± 4.2°, 0.003 ± 0.06 mm and 0.004 ± 0.04 mm, respectively and high correlation was found to all parameter (r > 0.97) except for IA (r = 0.67). Intrasession repeatability of VX120 refraction, CCT, IA and keratometry yielded low within-subject standard deviations. Inter-session repeatability showed no statistically significant difference for most of the parameters measured. Conclusions The VX120 provides consistent refraction and most anterior segment measurements in normal healthy eyes, with high levels of intra and inter-session repeatability.

Interpupillary distance (IPD) is important in developmental anatomy, genetics, design of optical instrumentation, ocular diagnostics, and optical prescribing. IPD frequently is measured on different days, and by either automatic pupillometers (physiological measurement) or manual ruler (anatomical measurement). Therefore, there is importance in the agreement and inter-session repeatability of manual and automatic IPD measurements. Monocular distance from the bridge of the nose and binocular distance and near binocular IPD were randomly measured, using a millimeter ruler and the Essilor Pupillon pupillometer. Gender effects were assessed using Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests, respectively. Agreement was assessed using Spearman correlation and Bland-Altman (B&A) plots. Thirty additional participants were tested within 1-2 weeks to determine the inter-session repeatability. The agreement study included 199 participants (mean age: 24.1 ± 5.0 range: 19-53, 58 male, 141 female) and the repeatability sub- study included 30 (mean age: 27.9 ± 4.5, range: 23-39, 6 male, 24 female). Males and females significantly differed in age (<2 year mean difference (md)) and IPD (monocular md: < 1 mm, binocular md: < 2 mm). Manual vs. automatic measurements were significantly different for all conditions (md: <1 mm for all) except for distance left eye male PD. There was no significant difference between the session for both methods. Binocular and monocular manual and automatic measurements were significantly different statistically, but not clinically. Distance binocular IPD was approximately 3 mm wider than near IPD. Male binocular IPD was approximately 2 mm wider than the female IPD. Both methods had good inter-session repeatability.

A primary task of the eye care professional is determining the refraction, or optical correction, of a patient. The duochrome red-green test is a standard tool for verification of the final refraction. Traditionally, it is recommended for use both prior to and subsequent to determining the cylindrical or astigmatic component of the refraction. In order for it to be effective when used before correcting the cylinder it is necessary that the COLC (Circle of Least Confusion) be on the retina. This study examined whether it is necessarily true that the duochrome response in uncorrected astigmatism will be as trust-worthy as it is with corrected cylinders. The red-green examination was performed monocularly under the following three conditions: a. fully corrected refraction for the subgroup of eyes that had spherical refractions and for the subgroup of eyes with sphero-cylindrical refractions. b. best sphere-only correction without cylinder correction in sphero-cylindrical eyes c. an induced cylinder error in spherical eyes. The interval between the last “red” response and the first “green” response for the right eyes as a group and separately for the physiological cylinder and induced cylinder correction sub-groups was calculated and compared using a paired, two-tailed t-test. The intervals between “red” and “green” responses were not significantly different in the population as a whole and in the uncorrected physiological cylinder and induced cylinder subgroups examined. Based on the finding that the interval of red-green equality with fully corrected cylinder and without the cylindrical correction are not significantly different, the red-green duochrome test can indeed be used both before and after cylindrical correction.