Comparison of refractive assessment by wavefront aberrometry, autorefraction, and subjective refraction

Bennett, Jeffrey R.; Stalboerger, Gina; Hodge, David O.; Schornack, Muriel

doi:10.1016/j.optom.2014.11.001

Cited by 34 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For adults the results taken by the i.Profiler Plus (Carl Zeiss Vision, Aalen) are comparable to the results by the Canon RK 2F autorefractor [28]. The same relation has been shown for other autorefractors and Hartmann-Shak sensors [29].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Reference curves for refraction in a German cohort of healthy children and adolescents

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Percentile curves of refractive development for German children were generated. We hypothesize that refraction in children in central Europe might differ from data in central Asia. Methods Non-cycloplegic refraction was measured using the ZEISS i.Profiler plus (Carl Zeiss Vision GmbH, Germany) in 1999 children, of which were 1046 male and 953 female, aged 3 to 18 years. Reference curves were calculated with the R-package GAMLSS as continuous function of age.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Reference curves for refraction in a German cohort of healthy children and adolescents

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dioptric differences between the two refractions are included here for comparison with other studies, despite the many different metric, wavefront refraction, and subjective refraction methodologies used in the past. However, when stating dioptric values, bear in mind that while a particular VSX value quantifies visual image quality essentially independent of pupil size, a particular dioptric value does not, for instance, −1 D affects vision very differently when viewing through small and large pupils …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous studies have processed wavefront error measurements using image quality metric methodologies (both metrics of visual image quality and retinal image quality) to identify a SCA prescription. In contrast to methods that use only second‐order or other specific Zernike terms such as primary spherical aberration and coma, metric‐based methods consider the combination of all aberrations in the eye when optimising retinal image quality …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 Numerous studies 5,6,[13][14][15][16][17] have processed wavefront error measurements using image quality metric methodologies (both metrics of visual image quality and retinal image quality) to identify a SCA prescription. In contrast to methods that use only second-order 18,19 or other specific Zernike terms such as primary spherical aberration and coma, 5,20-22 metric-based methods consider the combination 23 of all aberrations in the eye when optimising retinal image quality. 5,13,16 Unfortunately, most previous works using WFE data have generally been limited to the difference between the dioptric powers of the wavefront and subjective refractions (generally comparing the spherical equivalents of the refractions, and many were retrospective).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is an objective refraction optimised using the visual Strehl ratio better than a subjective refraction?

Hastings

Marsack

Nguyen

et al. 2017

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To prospectively examine whether using the visual image quality metric, visual Strehl (VSX), to optimise objective refraction from wavefront error measurements can provide equivalent or better visual performance than subjective refraction and which refraction is preferred in free viewing. Methods Subjective refractions and wavefront aberrations were measured on 40 visually-normal eyes of 20 subjects, through natural and dilated pupils. For each eye a sphere, cylinder, and axis prescription was also objectively determined that optimised visual image quality (VSX) for the measured wavefront error. High contrast (HC) and low contrast (LC) logMAR visual acuity (VA) and short-term monocular distance vision preference were recorded and compared between the VSX-objective and subjective prescriptions both undilated and dilated. Results For 36 myopic eyes, clinically equivalent (and not statistically different) HC VA was provided with both the objective and subjective refractions (undilated mean ±SD was −0.06 ±0.04 with both refractions; dilated was −0.05 ±0.04 with the objective, and −0.05 ±0.05 with the subjective refraction). LC logMAR VA provided by the objective refraction was also clinically equivalent and not statistically different to that provided by the subjective refraction through both natural and dilated pupils for myopic eyes. In free viewing the objective prescription was preferred over the subjective by 72% of myopic eyes when not dilated. For four habitually undercorrected high hyperopic eyes, the VSX-objective refraction was more positive in spherical power and VA poorer than with the subjective refraction. Conclusions A method of simultaneously optimising sphere, cylinder, and axis from wavefront error measurements, using the visual image quality metric VSX, is described. In myopic subjects, visual performance, as measured by HC and LC VA, with this VSX-objective refraction was found equivalent to that provided by subjective refraction, and was typically preferred over subjective refraction. Subjective refraction was preferred by habitually undercorrected hyperopic eyes.

show abstract

“…However, larger pupil size might also change the pattern of relative peripheral refraction, either sphere or cylinder and contribute to the difference in regulation effects found. Most autorefractometers used to assess the effect of orthokeratology treatment are limited to a measured annular zone of approximately 2.0 to 3.0 mm [11][12][13] irrespective of the actual pupil size of the patient. Modern…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Pupil Size on Wavefront Refraction during Orthokeratology

Faria‐Ribeiro¹,

Navarro²,

González-Meijóme³

2016

Optom Vis Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acknowledgement and DisclosureThis study has been funded by FEDER through the COMPETE Program and by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) diameter. The aim of this work was to evaluate the axial and peripheral refraction and optical quality after orthokeratology using ray tracing software for different pupil sizes.Methods: Zemax-EE was used to generate a series of 30 semi-customized model eyes.Refraction in the central 80º of the visual field was objectively calculated using three different quality metrics criteria: Paraxial curvature matching, minimum Root Mean Square error (minRMS) and the Trough Focus Visual Strehl of the MTF (VSMTF), for 3 and 6 mm pupil diameters. Computed retinal images were subjectively evaluated by three well corrected subjects.Results: The tree metrics predicted significant different values for foveal and peripheral refractions. Compared with the Paraxial criteria, the other two metrics predicted more myopic refractions. Interestingly, the VSMTF predicts only a marginal myopic shift in the axial refraction as the pupil changes from 3 to 6 mm. As for peripheral refraction, all the three metrics predict a more myopic peripheral refraction in the temporal visual field (nasal retina) compared to the nasal visual field, regardless of pupil size. According to our observers the Paraxial metric shows the worst performance for a 3 m pupil. As for the 6 mm pupil, the VSMTF clearly outperforms the Paraxial metric, with the minRMS yielding by far the worst image quality. Conclusions:The present results show that wavefront refraction predicts significant differences in the peripheral refraction pattern depending on the quality metric criteria used. Nevertheless, results suggest that the supposed effect of myopic control produced by ortho-k treatments might be dependent of pupil size. The results for foveal vision obtained using the VSMTF criteria are more consistent with the reports of fluctuations in visual quality by of ortho-k patients under different light conditions.

show abstract

Comparison of refractive assessment by wavefront aberrometry, autorefraction, and subjective refraction

Cited by 34 publications

References 27 publications

Reference curves for refraction in a German cohort of healthy children and adolescents

Reference curves for refraction in a German cohort of healthy children and adolescents

Is an objective refraction optimised using the visual Strehl ratio better than a subjective refraction?

Effect of Pupil Size on Wavefront Refraction during Orthokeratology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About