{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017063081695966906, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0031023784901758012, 'mean_word_length': 5.8861209964412815, '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}}
Adaptive calibration of dynamic accommodation--implications for accommodating intraocular lenses.

PURPOSE
When the aging lens is replaced with prosthetic accommodating intraocular lenses (IOLs), with effective viscoelasticities different from those of the natural lens, mismatches could arise between the neural control of accommodation and the biomechanical properties of the new lens. These mismatches could lead to either unstable oscillations or sluggishness of dynamic accommodation. Using computer simulations, we investigated whether optimal accommodative responses could be restored through recalibration of the neural control of accommodation. Using human experiments, we also investigated whether the accommodative system has the capacity for adaptive recalibration in response to changes in lens biomechanics.


METHODS
Dynamic performance of two accommodating IOL prototypes was simulated for a 45-year-old accommodative system, before and after neural recalibration, using a dynamic model of accommodation. Accommodating IOL I, a prototype for an injectable accommodating IOL, was less stiff and less viscous than the natural 45-year-old lens. Accommodating IOL II, a prototype for a translating accommodating IOL, was less stiff and more viscous than the natural 45-year-old lens. Short-term adaptive recalibration of dynamic accommodation was stimulated using a double-step adaptation paradigm that optically induced changes in neuromuscular effort mimicking responses to changes in lens biomechanics.


RESULTS
Model simulations indicate that the unstable oscillations or sluggishness of dynamic accommodation resulting from mismatches between neural control and lens biomechanics might be restored through neural recalibration.


CONCLUSIONS
Empirical measures reveal that the accommodative system is capable of adaptive recalibration in response to optical loads that simulate effects of changing lens biomechanics.