Changes of the eye optics after iris constriction☆

Intraocular accommodative movements in monkeys; relationship to presbyopia

Our goal was to quantify the age-related changes in the dynamic accommodative movements of the vitreous and aqueous humor in iridic, aniridic, phakic and aphakic primate eyes. Six bilaterally iridic and four bilaterally iridectomized rhesus monkeys, ranging in age from 6 to 25 years, received a stimulating electrode in the midbrain Edinger-Westphal nucleus to induce accommodation, measured by a Hartinger coincidence refractometer. One of the four iridectomized monkeys underwent unilateral extracapsular and another monkey underwent intracapsular lens extraction. Eyes were imaged utilizing specialized techniques and contrast agents to resolve intraocular structures. During accommodation the anterior hyaloid membrane and the posterior lens capsule bowed backward. Central vitreous fluid and structures/strands moved posteriorly toward the optic nerve region as peripheral vitreous, attached to the vitreous zonule, was pulled forward by ciliary muscle contraction. Triamcinolone particles injected intravitreally were also observed in the anterior chamber and moved from the anterior chamber toward the cleft of the anterior hyaloid membrane and then further posteriorly into the vitreous-filled cleft between the vitreous zonule and the ciliary body pars plana. These accommodative movements occurred in all eyes, and declined with age. There are statistically significant accommodative movements of various intravitreal structures. The posterior/anterior fluid flow between the anterior chamber and the vitreous compartments during accommodation/disaccommodation represents fluid displacement to allow/facilitate lens thickening. The posterior accommodative movement of central vitreous fluid may result from centripetal compression of the anterior tips of the cistern-like structure attached to the vitreous zonule, and posterior displacement of the central trunk of the cistern during ciliary muscle contraction and centripetal muscle movement. The findings may have implications for presbyopia.

Changes in the objective amplitude of accommodation with pupil size

PURPOSE

We evaluate the effect of pupil size on objectively measured amplitude of accommodation (AA).

METHODS

Pupil diameter and wavefront aberrometry were obtained in 15 eyes when stimulus swept across the range of clear vision in steps of 0.5 diopters. Wavefront refraction techniques were used to compute objective AA as the maximum refractive change. Measurements were obtained monocularly under low and high ambient room lighting conditions with a fixed luminance of the fixation target. Amplitude of accommodation computations were performed taking into account just paraxial rays (paraxial AA) or including the effects of the change of spherical aberration during accommodation (minRMS AA).

RESULTS

Mean pupil size values at low light level were 6.26 mm (relaxed) and 4.15 mm (maximum accommodation), whereas at the high light level, those values became 4.74 and 3.04 mm, respectively. The effects of both light level on accommodation were significant (p < 0.001), and accommodative miosis was slightly larger at low light levels. Mean minRMS and paraxial AA were always greater by more than 1 diopter in high than in low ambient lighting conditions (p < 0.01), indicating a significant impact of pupil size on AA.

CONCLUSIONS

The influence of the ambient lighting on the objective AA is not only attributed to the increased effects of spherical aberration as the pupil dilates but mostly attributed to a decrease in the paraxial accommodation as pupil dilates.

Estimating the eye aberration coefficients in resized pupils: is it better to refit or to rescale?

In order to work in a consistent way with Zernike aberration coefficients estimated in different pupils, it is necessary to refer them to a common pupil size. Two standard approaches can be used to that end: to rescale algebraically the coefficients estimated in the original pupil or to refit them anew using the wavefront slope measurements available within the new one. These procedures are not equivalent; they are affected by different estimation errors that we address in this work. Our results for normal eye populations show that in case of reducing the pupil size it is better to rescale the original coefficients than to refit them using the measurements contained within the smaller pupil. In case of enlarging the pupil size, as it can a priori be expected, the opposite holds true. We provide explicit expressions to quantify the errors arising in both cases, including the expected error incurred when extrapolating the Zernike estimation beyond the radius where the measurements were made.

Modelling the impact of spherical aberration on accommodation

PURPOSE

To understand how primary and secondary spherical aberrations affect focusing of the retinal image and the measurement of refractive state in the accommodating eye.

METHODS

A computational eye model was constructed from published anatomical dimensions of the eye's refractive elements for a range of accommodative states. Two strategies for controlling accommodation were implemented, one in which paraxial rays are always perfectly focused and the other in which paraxial accommodative lag grew larger as target vergence increased. Multiple configurations of the model were achieved by selecting various combinations of pupil size and aberration structure. Refractive state was defined as optimum target vergence for maximizing retinal image quality according to several scalar metrics.

RESULTS

When accommodation optimally focuses paraxial rays, retinal image quality is sub-optimal for metrics of image quality sensitive to non-paraxial rays. This loss of image quality can be recovered by optimizing target vergence computationally, which indicates the presence of real accommodative error according to the non-paraxial metric even though the eye is accurately focused paraxially. However, such errors are spurious if non-paraxial refractive state is misinterpreted as paraxial refractive state. Accommodative errors may indicate lag or lead, but in general the slope of the stimulus-response function is less than 1 for non-paraxial measures of image quality. These results depend strongly on pupil size and its variation due to accommodative miosis.

CONCLUSIONS

spurious accommodative errors can appear when the eye focuses the retinal image optimally according to one metric of image quality (e.g. paraxial) while ocular refractive state is measured by another (e.g. non-paraxial). Spurious errors are small compared to real accommodative lag for small, photopic pupils but can be of the same order of magnitude as real lag for large, mesopic pupils.