The results of many studies in a variety of species have significantly advanced our understanding of the role of visual experience and the mechanisms of postnatal eye growth, and the development of myopia. This paper surveys and reviews the major contributions that experimental studies using animal models have made to our thinking about emmetropization and development of myopia. These studies established important concepts informing our knowledge of the visual regulation of eye growth and refractive development and have transformed treatment strategies for myopia. Several major findings have come from studies of experimental animal models. These include the eye's ability to detect the sign of retinal defocus and undergo compensatory growth, the local retinal control of eye growth, regulatory changes in choroidal thickness, and the identification of components in the biochemistry of eye growth leading to the characterization of signal cascades regulating eye growth and refractive state. Several of these findings provided the proofs of concepts that form the scientific basis of new and effective clinical treatments for controlling myopia progression in humans. Experimental animal models continue to provide new insights into the cellular and molecular mechanisms of eye growth control, including the identification of potential new targets for drug development and future treatments needed to stem the increasing prevalence of myopia and the vision-threatening conditions associated with this disease.

Risk factor analysis provides an important basis for developing interventions for any condition. In the case of myopia, evidence for a large number of risk factors has been presented, but they have not been systematically tested for confounding. To be useful for designing preventive interventions, risk factor analysis ideally needs to be carried through to demonstration of a causal connection, with a defined mechanism. Statistical analysis is often complicated by covariation of variables, and demonstration of a causal relationship between a factor and myopia using Mendelian randomization or in a randomized clinical trial should be aimed for. When strict analysis of this kind is applied, associations between various measures of educational pressure and myopia are consistently observed. However, associations between more nearwork and more myopia are generally weak and inconsistent, but have been supported by meta-analysis. Associations between time outdoors and less myopia are stronger and more consistently observed, including by meta-analysis. Measurement of nearwork and time outdoors has traditionally been performed with questionnaires, but is increasingly being pursued with wearable objective devices. A causal link between increased years of education and more myopia has been confirmed by Mendelian randomization, whereas the protective effect of increased time outdoors from the development of myopia has been confirmed in randomized clinical trials. Other proposed risk factors need to be tested to see if they modulate these variables. The evidence linking increased screen time to myopia is weak and inconsistent, although limitations on screen time are increasingly under consideration as interventions to control the epidemic of myopia.

Purpose Despite extensive research, mechanisms regulating postnatal eye growth and those responsible for ametropias are poorly understood. With the marked recent increases in myopia prevalence, robust and biologically-based clinical therapies to normalize refractive development in childhood are needed. Here, we review classic and contemporary literature about how circadian biology might provide clues to develop a framework to improve the understanding of myopia etiology, and possibly lead to rational approaches to ameliorate refractive errors developing in children. Recent findings Increasing evidence implicates diurnal and circadian rhythms in eye growth and refractive error development. In both humans and animals, ocular length and other anatomical and physiological features of the eye undergo diurnal oscillations. Systemically, such rhythms are primarily generated by the ‘master clock’ in the surpachiasmatic nucleus, which receives input from the intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) through the activation of the photopigment melanopsin. The retina also has an endogenous circadian clock. In laboratory animals developing experimental myopia, oscillations of ocular parameters are perturbed. Retinal signaling is now believed to influence refractive development; dopamine, an important neurotransmitter found in the retina, not only entrains intrinsic retinal rhythms to the light:dark cycle, but it also modulates refractive development. Circadian clocks comprise a transcription/translation feedback control mechanism utilizing so-called clock genes that have now been associated with experimental ametropias. Contemporary clinical research is also reviving ideas first proposed in the nineteenth century that light exposures might impact refraction in children. As a result, properties of ambient lighting are being investigated in refractive development. In other areas of medical science, circadian dysregulation is now thought to impact many non-ocular disorders, likely because the patterns of modern artificial lighting exert adverse physiological effects on circadian pacemakers. How, or if, such modern light exposures and circadian dysregulation contribute to refractive development is not known. Summary The premise of this review is that circadian biology could be a productive area worthy of increased investigation, which might lead to the improved understanding of refractive development and improved therapeutic interventions.

Subjects spent more time outdoors and received an increased light dose in summer, with no differences between refractive error groups in this adult population. Various environmental and seasonal measurements revealed significantly different available light in winter versus summer and indoors versus outdoors. Objective devices such as the Actiwatch can be valuable in studies where quantification of environmental factors is critical.

Hartinger-measured accommodation provides more realistic measurement of accommodative amplitude than the subjective methods tested, especially in the presbyopic population. In presbyopic subjects, the subjective tests resulted in accommodative amplitudes up to 4.0 diopters greater than those measured with objective tests. Measurements of accommodative amplitude are best achieved with objective methods to stimulate and measure accommodation.