Table 2.

Results from the repeated measures two-factor analysis of variance comparing the mean accommodative lag and mean accommodative variability (time domain [root mean square, RMS] the low-frequency component [LFC, 0-0.6Hz]) between groups and by condition within each group.

		Accommodative Lag	RMS#	LFC#
		Mean Difference (D), p-value	Mean Difference (D), p-value	Mean Difference (D), p-value
Passive Vs. Active*	Group 1	0.26, <0.001	0.23, <0.001	9.89E-04, <0.001
	Group 2	0.19, 0.007	0.09, <0.001	2.71E-04, <0.001
	Adults	<0.01, 0.96	0.004, 0.07	1.11E-04, 0.04
Passiveˆ	Group 1 vs. Group 2	0.12, 0.336	0.23, <0.001	1.01-03, <0.001
	Group 1 vs. Adults	0.40, 0.07	0.29, <0.001	1.21E-03, <0.001
	Group 2 vs. Adults	0.28, 0.22	0.06, 0.24	2.0E-04, 0.14
Activeˆ	Group 1 vs. Group 2	0.05, 0.69	0.09, 0.05	3.0E-04, 0.01
	Group 1 vs. Adults	0.13, 0.83	0.11, 0.08	3.3E-04, 0.01
	Group 2 vs. Adults	0.08, 0.87	0.02, 0.45	3.1E-05, 0.290

RMS – Root mean square, LFC – Low-frequency component (0-0.6 hertz), Hz – hertz, D – diopters

^#Data log transformed for analysis; reported as arithmetic median differences

^*positive difference indicates the outcome variable (accommodative lag, RMS or LFC) is largest in the passive condition

^ˆpositive difference indicates outcome variable is largest in the first group listed

Significant P-values (< 0.05) are in bold