{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020497803806734993, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.54066985645933, '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}}
Open‐ and closed‐loop regressions compared in myopic and emmetropic subjects

Post‐near task accommodation regressions have been measured in a number of studies to investigate the association between myopia and nearwork. The slow nature of the regression found when measuring both open‐ and closed‐loop regressions in some subjects has been hypothesised to be associated with myopia development and progression. However, it is not known whether the speed and characteristics of the regression for an individual is the same under open‐ and closed‐loop conditions. In this study we measured post‐near task accommodation regression functions under open‐ and closed‐loop conditions for myopic and emmetropic subjects. We compared the responses of each subject under the two conditions and found that some subjects responded differently depending on the condition (i.e. a fast regression under one condition and a slow regression under the other condition). When compared as a group, the myopic subjects showed significantly more prolonged open‐loop regressions than closed‐loop regressions. In terms of the effect on the post‐task accommodation, the myopes appear to be more affected by the measurement conditions than the emmetropes in this study. The results highlight the importance of the type of accommodation stimulus when investigating the accommodation response.