<p><strong>Purpose:</strong> The purpose of this study was to determine if there were any differences between four different target types when measuring the near point of convergence in adults.</p><p><strong>Methods and Material:</strong> The near point of convergence was measured in 35 subjects with a visual acuity of at least 1.0 (6/6) in each eye and without any strabismus. The targets used were: the tip of a pen, an accommodative target, the RAF line target and a penlight viewed through red-green filters. Both break and recovery points were assessed for the different techniques. Each target was used twice in consecutive order. The line target from RAF ruler was copied on to a small plastic ruler in order to be able to use the same ruler for measuring the results. All subjects were fitted with their best correction in the trial frame after a complete refraction. The measurements were taken to the nearest 0.25cm.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> There was no difference found between NPC break values for the different target types in the control group. The NPC values were found to be 5.0/7.4 in the control group and 10.8/18.2 in the anomalous group. The accommodative target was found to give more remote values (11.5cm) than expected in comparison to the other targets in the anomalous group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> In patients with normal NPC, the measurements can be taken with line target or Acc. target. Patients with receded NPC values should be evaluated with penlight and red-green glasses or at least twice with the tip of a pen. </p>

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if there were any differences between four different target types when measuring the near point of convergence in adults. Methods and Material: The near point of convergence was measured in 35 subjects with a visual acuity of at least 1.0 (6/6) in each eye and without any strabismus. The targets used were: the tip of a pen, an accommodative target, the RAF line target and a penlight viewed through red-green filters. Both break and recovery points were assessed for the different techniques. Each target was used twice in consecutive order. The line target from RAF ruler was copied on to a small plastic ruler in order to be able to use the same ruler for measuring the results. All subjects were fitted with their best correction in the trial frame after a complete refraction. The measurements were taken to the nearest 0.25cm. Results: There was no difference found between NPC break values for the different target types in the control group. The NPC values were found to be 5.0/7.4 in the control group and 10.8/18.2 in the anomalous group. The accommodative target was found to give more remote values (11.5cm) than expected in comparison to the other targets in the anomalous group. Conclusion: In patients with normal NPC, the measurements can be taken with line target or Acc. target. Patients with receded NPC values should be evaluated with penlight and red-green glasses or at least twice with the tip of a pen.

No description available.