There were significant, but small, effects of text type (Chinese, 0.97 ± 0.32 diopters [D] vs. English, 1.00 ± 0.37 D; F1,1230 = 7.24, p = 0.007) and reading distance (33 cm, 1.01 ± 0.30 D vs. 25 cm, 0.97 ± 0.39 D; F1,1230 = 7.74, p = 0.005) on accommodation accuracy across all participants. Accuracy was similar for emmetropic and myopic children across all reading tasks. Neither text type nor reading distance had significant effects on NITM or its regression. Myopes had greater NITM (by 0.07 D) (F1,81 = 5.05, p = 0.03) that took longer (by 50s) (F1,81 = 31.08, p < 0.01) to dissipate.
Reading Chinese text caused smaller accommodative lags than reading English text, but the small differences were not clinically significant. Myopic children had significantly greater NITM and longer regression than emmetropic children for both texts. Whether differences in NITM are a cause or consequence of myopia cannot be answered from this study.