Accommodation responses following contrast adaptation

Diez, Pablo Sanz; Schaeffel, Frank; Wahl, Siegfried; Ohlendorf, Arne

doi:10.1016/j.visres.2020.03.003

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides, the correlation we found was mainly at low SF. This indicated that the effect of myopia varies across the SF range, which is consistent with Diez et al (2020) research. They found that the changes of accommodation response were SF-dependent, too.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Is Peripheral Motion Detection Affected by Myopia?

Wei

Kong

et al. 2021

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe current study was to investigate whether myopia affected peripheral motion detection and whether the potential effect interacted with spatial frequency, motion speed, or eccentricity.MethodsSeventeen young adults aged 22–26 years participated in the study. They were six low to medium myopes [spherical equivalent refractions −1.0 to −5.0 D (diopter)], five high myopes (<-5.5 D) and six emmetropes (+0.5 to −0.5 D). All myopes were corrected by self-prepared, habitual soft contact lenses. A four-alternative forced-choice task in which the subject was to determine the location of the phase-shifting Gabor from the four quadrants (superior, inferior, nasal, and temporal) of the visual field, was employed. The experiment was blocked by eccentricity (20° and 27°), spatial frequency (0.6, 1.2, 2.4, and 4.0 cycles per degree (c/d) for 20° eccentricity, and 0.6, 1.2, 2.0, and 3.2 c/d for 27° eccentricity), as well as the motion speed [2 and 6 degree per second (d/s)].ResultsMixed-model analysis of variances showed no significant difference in the thresholds of peripheral motion detection between three refractive groups at either 20° (F[2,14] = 0.145, p = 0.866) or 27° (F[2,14] = 0.475, p = 0.632). At 20°, lower motion detection thresholds were associated with higher myopia (p < 0.05) mostly for low spatial frequency and high-speed targets in the nasal and superior quadrants, and for high spatial frequency and high-speed targets in the temporal quadrant in myopic viewers. Whereas at 27°, no significant correlation was found between the spherical equivalent and the peripheral motion detection threshold under all conditions (all p > 0.1). Spatial frequency, speed, and quadrant of the visual field all showed significant effect on the peripheral motion detection threshold.ConclusionThere was no significant difference between the three refractive groups in peripheral motion detection. However, lower motion detection thresholds were associated with higher myopia, mostly for low spatial frequency targets, at 20° in myopic viewers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Is Peripheral Motion Detection Affected by Myopia?

Wei

Kong

et al. 2021

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This multifocality with multiple overlapping images induces more high-order optical errors and therefore a more evenly smeared out PSF with lower contrast already for low spatial frequencies. This is interesting since recent studies show that myopic subjects are not very responsive to positive defocus and that contrast reductions can be a possible treatment effect of myopia control interventions [ 24 , 32 , 33 ]. The contrast reduction in the image on the peripheral retina is clear both from the double-pass and the peripheral acuity evaluations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of optical myopia control interventions: effect on peripheral image quality and vision

Papadogiannis

Börjeson

Lundström

2023

Biomed. Opt. Express

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compares the effects on peripheral vision and image quality of four myopia control interventions: a) Perifocal spectacles/ArtOptica, b) Stellest spectacles/Essilor), c) MiyoSmart spectacles/Hoya and d) MiSight contact lenses/CooperVision. Five subjects participated with habitual or no correction as reference. Three techniques were used: 1) Hartmann-Shack sensors for wavefront errors, 2) double-pass imaging system for point-spread-functions (PSF), and 3) peripheral acuity evaluation. The results show that multiple evaluation methods are needed to fully quantify the optical effects of these myopia control interventions. Perifocal was found to make the relative peripheral refraction (RPR) more myopic in all subjects and to interact with the natural optical errors of the eye, hence showing larger variations in the effect on peripheral vision. MiSight had a smaller effect on RPR, but large effect on peripheral vision. Stellest and MiyoSmart also showed small effects on RPR but had broader double-pass PSFs for all participants, indicating reduced retinal contrast. Reduction in peripheral retinal contrast might thereby play a role in slowing myopia progression even when the peripheral refraction does not turn more myopic.

show abstract

Short-Term Peripheral Contrast Reduction Affects Central Chromatic and Achromatic Contrast Sensitivity

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peripheral retinal contrast reduction is suggested as a potential myopia control strategy. However, the underlying mechanism is yet unknown. Therefore, this study investigated the influence of peripheral contrast reduction on central chromatic and achromatic contrast sensitivity (CS). A total of 19 participants were included. Peripheral contrast reduction was induced via Bangerter foils of 0.4 and 0.8 density, each with a clear central zone of 8.0 mm diameter. Central achromatic and chromatic (for S-, M-, and L-cone types) CS was measured at 3 and 12 cpd in a 2-IFC psychophysical procedure. CS was tested monocularly at 0, 30, and 90 min of adaptation time, while the fellow eye was covered by an infrared filter. With the filter in place, pupil size was controlled to be smaller than the clear central aperture. Data were analyzed using linear mixed models. Cone-type CS showed significant differences among each other (all p < 0.05), except for the achromatic and L-cone type (p = 0.87). The minimum sensitivity was found with the S-cone type and the maximum with the M-cone type. Central achromatic and chromatic CS were equally affected by diffusion. The level of peripheral diffusion also influenced CS, while the 0.8 Bangerter foil led to a higher reduction in CS compared to the 0.4 Bangerter foil (p = 0.0008) and the control condition (p = 0.05). A significant reduction in CS occurred between 30 and 90 min of adaptation time (p < 0.0001). The current study found that peripheral contrast reduction impacted central achromatic and chromatic CS equally. It further showed that the amplitude of reduction was influenced by the level of diffusion, with the reduction becoming more pronounced over time.

show abstract

Accommodation responses following contrast adaptation

Cited by 3 publications

References 44 publications

Is Peripheral Motion Detection Affected by Myopia?

Is Peripheral Motion Detection Affected by Myopia?

Comparison of optical myopia control interventions: effect on peripheral image quality and vision

Short-Term Peripheral Contrast Reduction Affects Central Chromatic and Achromatic Contrast Sensitivity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About