Peripheral Refraction Profiles in Subjects with Low Foveal Refractive Errors

Tabernero, Juan; Ohlendorf, Arne; Fischer, Manuel; Bruckmann, Anna; Schiefer, Ulrich; Schaeffel, Frank

doi:10.1097/opx.0b013e31820bb0f5

Cited by 20 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The visual benefit of potentially correcting peripheral HOA with contact lenses would be expected to be greater with improved correction of peripheral LOA. Consistent with previous studies, 55–57 large between-subject variation was noticed in this study and this may impose hurdles for clinicians and CLs manufacturers to manipulate vision correction in periphery.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Peripheral Aberrations and Image Quality for Contact Lens Correction

Shen¹,

Thibos

2011

Optometry and Vision Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Contact lenses reduced the degree of hyperopic field curvature present in myopic eyes and rigid contact lenses reduced sphero-cylindrical image blur on the peripheral retina, but their effect on higher order aberrations and overall optical quality of the eye in the peripheral visual field is still unknown. The purpose of our study was to evaluate peripheral wavefront aberrations and image quality across the visual field before and after contact lens correction. Methods A commercial Hartmann-Shack aberrometer was used to measure ocular wavefront errors in 5° steps out to 30° of eccentricity along the horizontal meridian in uncorrected eyes and when the same eyes are corrected with soft or rigid contact lenses. Wavefront aberrations and image quality were determined for the full elliptical pupil encountered in off-axis measurements. Results Ocular higher-order aberrations increase away from fovea in the uncorrected eye. Third-order aberrations are larger and increase faster with eccentricity compared to the other higher-order aberrations. Contact lenses increase all higher-order aberrations except 3rd-order Zernike terms. Nevertheless, a net increase in image quality across the horizontal visual field for objects located at the foveal far point is achieved with rigid lenses, whereas soft contact lenses reduce image quality. Conclusions Second order aberrations limit image quality more than higher-order aberrations in the periphery. Although second-order aberrations are reduced by contact lenses, the resulting gain in image quality is partially offset by increased amounts of higher-order aberrations. To fully realize the benefits of correcting higher-order aberrations in the peripheral field requires improved correction of second-order aberrations as well.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Peripheral Aberrations and Image Quality for Contact Lens Correction

Shen¹,

Thibos

2011

Optometry and Vision Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Perhaps more importantly, the cutoff will likely vary between locations according to eccentricity, due to changes in RGC density, peripheral refractive error, 38 etc. In this study, all locations tested were within the 24-2 test pattern.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the Reliability of Standard Automated Perimetry in Regions of Glaucomatous Damage

Gardiner¹,

Swanson²,

Goren³

et al. 2014

Ophthalmology

165

200

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Visual field testing uses high contrast stimuli in areas of severe visual field loss. However, retinal ganglion cells saturate with high contrast stimuli, suggesting that the probability of detecting perimetric stimuli may not increase indefinitely as contrast increases. Driven by this concept, this study examines the lower limit of perimetric sensitivity for reliable testing by standard automated perimetry. Design Evaluation of diagnostic test. Participants 34 participants with moderate to severe glaucoma (Mean Deviation (MD) on their last clinic visit averaged −10.90dB, range −20.94dB to −3.38dB). 75 of the 136 locations tested had perimetric sensitivity ≤19dB. Methods Frequency of seeing curves were constructed at four non-adjacent visual field locations by the method of constant stimuli (MOCS), using 35 stimulus presentations at each of 7 contrasts. Locations were chosen a priori, and included at least two with glaucomatous damage but sensitivity ≥6dB. Cumulative Gaussian curves were fit to the data, first assuming a 5% false negative rate, and subsequently allowing the asymptotic maximum response probability to be a free parameter. Main Outcome Measures The strength of the relation (R2) between perimetric sensitivity (mean of last two clinic visits) and MOCS sensitivity (from the experiment), for all locations with perimetric sensitivity within ±4dB of each selected value, at 0.5dB intervals. Results Bins centered at sensitivities ≥19dB always had R2>0.1. All bins centered at sensitivities ≤15dB had R2<0.1, an indication that sensitivities are unreliable. No consistent conclusions could be drawn between 15–19dB. At 57 of the 81 locations with perimetric sensitivity <19dB, including 49 of the 63 locations ≤15dB, the fitted asymptotic maximum response probability was <80%, consistent with the hypothesis of response saturation. At 29 of these locations the asymptotic maximum was below 50%, and so contrast sensitivity (50% response rate) is undefined. Conclusions Clinical visual field testing may be unreliable when visual field locations have sensitivity below approximately 15–19dB, due to a reduction in the asymptotic maximum response probability. Researchers and clinicians may have difficulty detecting worsening sensitivity in these visual field locations and this difficulty may occur commonly in glaucoma patients with moderate to severe glaucomatous visual field loss.

show abstract

“…For example, the pattern of peripheral refraction varies with the central refraction (Chen et al, 2010; Ehsaei et al, 2011; Millodot, 1981). Although there is substantial intersubject variability (Tabernero et al, 2011), on average, in individuals with axial myopia, the degree of myopia decreases with eccentricity in the horizontal meridian, i.e., the average myopic eye exhibits relative peripheral hyperopia. On the other hand, hyperopic eyes typically manifest relative peripheral myopia and emmetropic eyes tend to have relatively constant and near emmetropic refractive errors over the central 40-50 degrees of the retina.…”

Section: Peripheral Optical Treatment Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optical treatment strategies to slow myopia progression: Effects of the visual extent of the optical treatment zone

Smith

2013

Experimental Eye Research

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to develop effective optical treatment strategies for myopia, it is important to understand how visual experience influences refractive development. Beginning with the discovery of the phenomenon of form deprivation myopia, research involving many animal species has demonstrated that refractive development is regulated by visual feedback. In particular, animal studies have shown that optically imposed myopic defocus slows axial elongation, that the effects of vision are dominated by local retinal mechanisms, and that peripheral vision can dominate central refractive development. In this review, the results obtained from clinical trials of traditional optical treatment strategies employed in efforts to slow myopia progression in children are interpreted in light of the results from animal studies and are compared to the emerging results from preliminary clinical studies of optical treatment strategies that manipulate the effective focus of the peripheral retina. Overall, the results suggest that imposed myopic defocus can slow myopia progression in children and that the effectiveness of an optical treatment strategy in reducing myopia progression is influenced by the extent of the visual field that is manipulated.

show abstract

Peripheral Refraction Profiles in Subjects with Low Foveal Refractive Errors

Abstract: The most common peripheral refraction profile (observed in nearly 50% of our population) was best described by the "box model." The high variability among subjects may limit attempts to reduce myopia progression with a uniform lens design and may rather call for a customized approach.

Cited by 20 publications

References 25 publications

Peripheral Aberrations and Image Quality for Contact Lens Correction

Peripheral Aberrations and Image Quality for Contact Lens Correction

Assessment of the Reliability of Standard Automated Perimetry in Regions of Glaucomatous Damage

Optical treatment strategies to slow myopia progression: Effects of the visual extent of the optical treatment zone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About