Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Optom Vis Sci. 2012 May;89(5):727–737. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e318253de7e

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Modeled results for ciliary muscle thickness 1 mm posterior to the scleral spur (CMT1) for a range of accommodative responses, showing that higher levels of accommodative response (more negative values) were associated with a thicker measurement at CMT1. Cycloplegic maximum ciliary muscle thickness (CMTMAX) was a statistically significant variable in the model, so the three lines represent three different cycloplegic ciliary muscle thicknesses across the range of our sample.