Looking more closely at the results of Experiment 2 with the logMAR hologram, a mean vision of 0.55 logMAR for the distance corrected subjects is much worse than the visual acuity that is obtained under white light illumination. The reduced visual acuity may be attributed to the coherent nature of the laser light illuminating the hologram.14 The range of the measured values of the visual acuity with the logMAR hologram is 0.48 in logMAR units. As we recruited subjects with vision better than in white light the expected range for the spread in the visual acuity is about 0.4 logMAR units (between and i.e., to ). If instrument myopia played a role in measuring vision using the logMAR hologram, the measured vision of all the subjects would be correlated to the age, as instrument myopia is an accommodation related phenomenon. However, the Pearson correlation coefficient between the age and the logMAR value of the vision for all the subjects was small (, , see Table 12). Interestingly, there was no correlation between the age and the logMAR value of the vision for myopes (, ) while the correlation between the age and the logMAR value of the vision for hyperopes was strong (, ). The negative sign for obtained for hyperopes implies that younger hyperopes had poorer vision in viewing through the logMAR hologram with their distance correction than the older hyperopes. It is known that when a distance correction is provided to hyperopes some latent accommodation remains in play. As the distance corrected vision through the logMAR hologram is worse for younger hyperopes as compared with the older hyperopes, this seems to suggest that the latent hyperopia is in play when hyperopic subjects view through the logMAR hologram. This is consistent with our initial findings reported in our earlier paper10 that it may be possible to get a measure of hyperopia without the intervention of latent accommodation using the multivergence hologram.