Is Peripheral Motion Detection Affected by Myopia?

Abstract

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.

Assessing the contrast sensitivity function in myopic parafovea: A quick contrast sensitivity functions study

“…Thorn et al (2016) measured peripheral contrast detection thresholds binocularly at 8, 17, and 30° eccentricities and found no significant difference between myopes and emmetropes. Wei et al (2021) found motion detection thresholds were negatively correlated with the degree of myopia for low spatial frequency targets at 20° eccentricity. In this study, we applied the Bayesian adaptive qCSF procedure and compared the contrast sensitivity functions of myopes and emmetropes in peripheral vision.…”

“…Multiple articles have demonstrated that visual functions differ in different parts of the visual field in myopia and the emmetropia, with visual acuity in the nasal and superior retinal regions being better than that in the temporal and inferior regions in myopia and emmetropia groups (Ehsaei et al, 2013). Wei et al (2021) found significant correlation between myopia severity and motion detection thresholds in the nasal and superior visual field at 20 • . Kuo et al (2018) found significant correlations between Dmin task performance and myopia severity in the superior and temperal 10.3389/fnins.2022.971009…”

“…Brown-Forsythe correction was used to correct the multivariate ANOVA results. In comparison, a total of 17 eyes were included in Wei et al’s (2021) study and a total of 45 eyes were included in Thorn et al’s (2016) study on peripheral visual functions. Both were small sample studies, perhaps due to the complexity of peripheral CSF measurements.…”

Effect of myopia‐control lenses on central and peripheral visual performance in myopic children

“…Static and dynamic contrast sensitivity were evaluated at 20° eccentricity 32,33 . The optotype stimulus was a phase‐shifted grating within a two‐dimensional Gaussian window—Gabor stimulus, displayed at 20° eccentricity and randomly presented in one of the four quadrants of the visual field (nasal, temporal, superior and inferior; Figure 1) for 200 ms in each trial.…”

“…Static and dynamic contrast sensitivity were evaluated at 20° eccentricity. 32,33 The optotype stimulus was a phaseshifted grating within a two-dimensional Gaussian window-Gabor stimulus, displayed at 20° eccentricity and randomly presented in one of the four quadrants of the visual field (nasal, temporal, superior and inferior; Figure 1) for 200 ms in each trial. The test distance was 0.55 m. In this experiment, a four-option forced-choice task was used, which required participants to focus and fixate on a cross at the centre of the screen (Figure 1).…”