{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020444444444444446, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0071111111111111115, 'mean_word_length': 5.186813186813187, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison between MEM and Nott dynamic retinoscopy.

PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to compare MEM dynamic retinoscopy with the Nott method, to discover whether there were different results in the accommodative response and whether a relation exists between the two techniques.


METHODS
We performed MEM and Nott dynamic retinoscopy in 50 visually normal university students. Both methods were performed first on the basis of static retinoscopy and second with the result of the subjective refractive exam (binocular balancing).


RESULTS
A statistically significant difference existed between the methods. Nott retinoscopy assessed on basis of the subjective refractive exam was the method that obtained the lowest amounts of accommodative lag (+0.42 D), whereas MEM method performed through the static retinoscopy result showed the highest accommodative lag (+0.94 D). Furthermore, correlation analysis showed that a linear relation existed between both methods, so that the Nott value was about one-half the value of the MEM retinoscopy.


CONCLUSIONS
MEM dynamic retinoscopy showed greater lag than Nott retinoscopy.