2-D Peripheral image quality metrics with different types of multifocal contact lenses

Statistical Model of Ocular Wavefronts With Accommodation

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the minimum number of orthonormal basis functions, applying Principal Component Analysis (PCA), to represent the most wavefront aberrations at different accommodation stages. The study also aims to generate synthetic wavefront data using these functions.

Methods

Monocular wavefront data from 191 subjects (26.15 ± 5.56 years old) were measured with a Hartmann-Shack aberrometer, simulating accommodation from 0 diopters (D) to 5 D in 1 D steps. The wavefronts for each accommodative demand were rescaled for different pupil sizes: 4.66, 4.76, 4.40, 4.09, 4.07, and 3.68 mm. PCA was applied to 150 wavefront parameters (25 Zernike coefficients × 6 accommodation levels) to obtain eigenvectors for dimensional reduction. A total of 49 eigenvectors were modeled as a sum of 2 multivariate Gaussians, from which 1000 synthetic data sets were generated.

Results

The first 49 eigenvectors preserved 99.97% of the original data variability. No significant differences were observed between the mean values and standard deviation of the generated and original 49 eigenvectors (two one-sided test [TOST], P > 0.05/49) and (F-test, P > 0.05/49), both with Bonferroni correction. The mean values of the generated parameters (1000) were statistically equal to those of the original data (TOST, P > 0.05/150). The variability of the generated data was similar to the original data for the most important Zernike coefficients (F-test, P > 0.05/150).

Conclusions

PCA significantly reduces the dimensionality of wavefront aberration data across 6 accommodative demands, reducing the variable space by over 66%. The synthetic data generated by the proposed wavefront model for accommodation closely resemble the original clinical data.

Foveal and peripheral visual quality and accommodation with multifocal contact lenses

Multifocal contact lenses are increasingly popular interventions for controlling myopia. This study presents the short-term effects of multifocal contact lenses on foveal and peripheral vision. The MiSight contact lenses designed to inhibit myopia progression and the 1-Day Acuvue Moist contact lenses designed for presbyopia were investigated. The MiSight produced similar foveal results to spectacles despite the increased astigmatism and coma. The MiSight also reduced the low-contrast resolution acuity in the periphery, despite no clear change in relative peripheral refraction. When compared with spectacles, Acuvue Moist decreased accommodative response and reduced foveal high- and low-contrast resolution acuity, whereas peripheral thresholds were more similar to those of spectacles. The most likely treatment property for myopia control by the MiSight is the contrast reduction in the peripheral visual field and the changed accommodation.

Myopia Control Effect Is Influenced by Baseline Relative Peripheral Refraction in Children Wearing Defocus Incorporated Multiple Segments (DIMS) Spectacle Lenses

The aim of this study is to investigate if baseline relative peripheral refraction (RPR) influences the myopia control effects in Chinese myopic children wearing Defocus Incorporated Multiple Segments (DIMS) lenses. Peripheral refraction at 10°, 20°, and 30° nasal (10 N, 20 N, 30 N) and temporal (10 T, 20 T, 30 T) retina were measured at six-month intervals for children who participated in a 2-year randomized controlled trial. The relationship between the baseline peripheral refractions and myopia progression and axial length changes were analysed. A total of 79 children and 81 children in the DIMS and single vision (SV) group were investigated, respectively. In the DIMS group, more baseline myopic RPR spherical equivalent (SE) was associated with more myopic progression (10 N: r = 0.36, p = 0.001; 20 N: r = 0.35, p = 0.001) and greater axial elongation (10 N: r = −0.34, p = 0.001; 20 N: r = −0.29, p = 0.006) after adjusting for co-factors. In the SV group, baseline RPR had association with only myopia progression (10 N: r = 0.37, p = 0.001; 20 N: r = 0.36, p = 0.001; 30 N: r = 0.35, p = 0.002) but not with axial elongation after Bonferroni correction (p > 0.008). No statistically significant relationship was found between temporal retina and myopia progression or axial elongation in both groups. Children with baseline myopic RPR had statistically significant more myopia progression (mean difference around −0.40 D) and more axial elongation (mean difference 0.15 mm) when compared with the children having baseline hyperopic RPR in the DIMS group but not in the SV group. In conclusion, the baseline RPR profile may not influence future myopia progression or axial elongation for the SV lens wearers. However, DIMS lenses slowed down myopia progression and was better in myopia control for the children with baseline hyperopic RPR than the children with myopic RPR. This may partially explain why myopia control effects vary among myopic children. Customised myopic defocus for individuals may optimise myopia control effects, and further research to determine the optimal dosage, with consideration of peripheral retinal profile, is warranted.

Simultaneous measurements of foveal and peripheral aberrations with accommodation in myopic and emmetropic eyes

The difference in peripheral retinal image quality between myopic and emmetropic eyes plays a major role in the design of the optical myopia interventions. Knowing this difference under accommodation can help to understand the limitations of the currently available optical solutions for myopia control. A newly developed dual-angle open-field sensor was used to assess the simultaneous foveal and peripheral ( 20 ∘ nasal visual field) wavefront aberrations for five target vergences from -0.31 D to -4.0 D in six myopic and five emmetropic participants. With accommodation, the myopic eyes showed myopic shifts, and the emmetropic eyes showed no change in RPR. Furthermore, RPR calculated from simultaneous measurements showed lower intra-subject variability compared to the RPR calculated from peripheral measurements and target vergence. Other aberrations, as well as modulation transfer functions for natural pupils, were similar between the groups and the accommodation levels, foveally and peripherally. Results from viewing the same nearby target with and without spectacles by myopic participants suggest that the accommodative response is not the leading factor controlling the amplitude of accommodation microfluctuations.