Objectives: To measure the value of objective accommodation amplitude (AA) in patients using the new autorefractometer device and to evaluate the effects of age, refraction errors, pupil diameter on objective AA measurements. Methods: Three hundred subjects who were divided into five groups according to age were enrolled in this study. AA and pupil diameter were measured three times from both eyes using Tonoref III (NIDEK Co., Ltd.). Results: The mean AA was 1.6325±0.061 Diopter (D) (0.13-9.11 D). The mean AA values were statistically significantly different between the groups (p=0.000). It was not observed gender effect on AA (p=0.115). Although there was no significant difference between emmetropic and myopic groups, there were significant differences between emmetropic and hyperopic groups and also between myopic and hyperopic groups concerning AA (p=0.000, for both). A statistically significant difference was found for the mean AA between the groups with and without refractive surgery (p=0.028). Correlation analysis revealed that AA is increased as the mean pupil diameter increases (p=0.000, r=0.202) and the mean pupil diameter decreases with increasing age (p=0.000, r=-0.308). When the AA obtained from the patients in group 1 were compared with the AA values obtained by subjective accommodation tests, the AA values obtained by autorefractometer device were found to be correlated with push up, push down and minus lens tests (r=0.577, r=0.682, r=0.427) AA values obtained by autorefractometer device were found to be statistically significantly lower than other subjective tests (p
1. Win-Hall DM, Glasser A. Objective accommodation measurements in prepresbyopic eyes using an autorefractor and an aberrometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34:774–84.
2. Croft MA, Glasser A, Kaufman PL. Accommodation and presbyopia. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2001;41:33–46.
3. Charman WN. The eye in focus: Accommodation and presbyopia. Clin Exp Optom 2008;91:207–25.
4. Anderson HA, Stuebing KK. Subjective versus objective accommodative amplitude: Preschool to presbyopia. Optom Vis Sci 2014;91:1290–301.
5. Wolffsohn JS, Hunt OA, Naroo S, Gilmartin B, Shah S, Cunliffe IA, et al. Objective accommodative amplitude and dynamics with the 1CU accommodative intraocular lens. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:1230–5.
6. Ben-Nun J, Alió JL. Feasibility and development of a high-power real accommodating intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31:1802–8.
7. Küchle M, Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Gusek-Schneider GC, Martus P, Nguyen NX; Erlangen Accommodative Intraocular Lens Study Group. Comparison of 6-month results of implantation of the 1CU accommodative intraocular lens with conventional intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 2004;111:318–24.
8. Chen Y, Zhang C, Ding C, Tao C, Bao J, Zheng J, et al. Repeatability of two subjective accommodative amplitude measurements and agreement with an objective method. Clin Exp Optom 2019;102:412–7.
9. Momeni-Moghaddam H, Wolffsohn JS, Azimi A, Babaei- Malekkolaei E. Effect of target distance on accommodative amplitude measured using the minus lens technique. Clin Exp Optom 2014;97:62–5.
10. Momeni-Moghaddam H, Kundart J, Askarizadeh F. Comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitudes. Indian J Ophthalmol 2014;62:683–7.
11. Ovenseri-Ogbomo GO, Kudjawu EP, Kio FE, Abu EK. Investigation of amplitude of accommodation among Ghanaian school children. Clin Exp Optom 2012;95:187–91.
12. Win-Hall DM, Ostrin LA, Kasthurirangan S, Glasser A. Objective Accommodation Measurement with the Grand Seiko and Hartinger. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:879–87.
13. Win-Hall DM, Glasser A. Objective accommodation measurements in pseudophakic subjects using an autorefractor and an aberrometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35:282–90.
14. León A, Estrada JM, Rosenfield M. Age and the amplitude of accommodation measured using dynamic retinoscopy. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2016;36:5–12.
15. Win-Hall DM, Houser J, Glasser A. Static and Dynamic Accommodation Measured. Optom Vis Sci 2010;87:873–82.
16. Desmond T, Arthur P, Watt K. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by ultrasound pachymetry and 2 new devices, Tonoref III and RS-3000. Int Ophthalmol 2019;39:917– 23.
17. Singman E, Matta N, Tian J, Silbert D. Association between accommodative amplitudes and amblyopia. Strabismus 2013;21:137–9.
18. López-Alcón D, Marín-Franch I, Fernández-Sánchez V, López- Gil N. Optical factors influencing the amplitude of accommodation. Vision Res 2017;141:16–22.
19. McBrien NA, Millodot M. Amplitude of accommodation and refractive error. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1986;27:1187–90.
20. Abraham LM, Kuriakose T, Sivanandam V, Venkatesan N, Thomas R, Muliyil J. Amplitude of Accommodation and its Relation to Refractive Errors. Indian J Ophthalmol 2005;53:105–8.
21. Schaeffel F, Wilhelm H, Zrenner E. Interindividual variability in the dynamics of natural accommodation in humans: relation to age and refractive errors. J Physiol 1993;461:301–20.
22. Lara F, Bernal-Molina P, Fernández-Sánchez V, López-Gil N. Changes in the objective amplitude of accommodation with pupil size. Optom Vis Sci 2014;91:1215–20.
23. Liu L, Yuan J, Li J, Li X, Wang Y. Effect of laser in situ keratomileusis on accommodation. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci 2008;28:596–8.
24. Prakash G, Choudhary V, Sharma N, Titiyal JS. Change in the accommodative convergence per unit of accommodation ratio after bilateral laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia in orthotropic patients. Prospective evaluation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33:2054–6.