Comparison of aniseikonia as measured by the aniseikonia inspector and the space eikonometer

Evaluation of Aniseikonia in Patients with Successfully Treated Anisometropic Amblyopia Using Spatial Aniseikonia Test

Anisometropic amblyopia is decreased visual acuity in one eye, and treatment consists of wearing complete corrective spectacles. Aniseikonia occurs with complete correction of anisometropia using spectacles. Aniseikonia has been ignored when treating pediatric anisometropic amblyopia because of the prevailing belief that anisometropic symptoms are suppressed by adaptation. However, the conventional direct comparison method for evaluating aniseikonia significantly underestimates the degree of aniseikonia. This study investigated whether the adaptation occurs due to long-term anisometropic amblyopia treatment in patients who have had successful amblyopia treatment using a spatial aniseikonia test with high accuracy and repeatability compared with the conventional direct comparison method. The amount of aniseikonia was not significantly different between the patients with successful amblyopia treatment and individuals with anisometropia without a history of amblyopia. In both groups, the aniseikonia per 1.00 D of anisometropia and the aniseikonia per 1.00 mm of aniso-axial length were comparable. The repeatability of the amount of aniseikonia using the spatial aniseikonia test did not differ significantly between the two groups, indicating a high degree of agreement. These findings suggest that aniseikonia is not adapted to amblyopia treatment and that aniseikonia increases as the difference between spherical equivalent and axial length increases.

Meridional ocular magnification after cataract surgery with toric and non-toric intraocular lenses

Background

Overall ocular magnification (OOM) and meridional ocular magnification (MOM) with consequent image distortions have been widely ignored in modern cataract surgery. The purpose of this study was to investigate OOM and MOM in a general situation with an astigmatic refracting surface.

Methods

From a large dataset containing biometric measurements (IOLMaster 700) of both eyes of 9734 patients prior to cataract surgery, the equivalent (P_IOLeq) and cylindric power (P_IOLcyl) were derived for the HofferQ, Haigis, and Castrop formulae for emmetropia. Based on the pseudophakic eye model, OOM and MOM were extracted using 4 × 4 matrix algebra for the corrected eye (with P_IOLeq/P_IOLcyl (scenario 1) or with P_IOLeq and spectacle correction of the residual refractive cylinder (scenario 2) or with P_IOLeq remaining the residual uncorrected refractive cylinder (blurry image) (scenario 3)). In each case, the relative image distortion of MOM/OOM was calculated in %.

Results

On average, P_IOLeq/P_IOLcyl was 20.73 ± 4.50 dpt/1.39 ± 1.09 dpt for HofferQ, 20.75 ± 4.23 dpt/1.29 ± 1.01 dpt for Haigis, and 20.63 ± 4.31 dpt/1.26 ± 0.98 dpt for Castrop formulae. Cylindric refraction for scenario 2 was 0.91 ± 0.70 dpt, 0.89 ± 0.69 dpt, and 0.89 ± 0.69 dpt, respectively. OOM/MOM (× 1000) was 16.56 ± 1.20/0.08 ± 0.07, 16.56 ± 1.20/0.18 ± 0.14, and 16.56 ± 1.20/0.08 ± 0.07 mm/mrad with HofferQ; 16.64 ± 1.16/0.07 ± 0.06, 16.64 ± 1.16/0.18 ± 0.14, and 16.64 ± 1.16/0.07 ± 0.06 mm/mrad with Haigis; and 16.72 ± 1.18/0.07 ± 0.05, 16.72 ± 1.18/0.18 ± 0.14, and 16.72 ± 1.18/0.07 ± 0.05 mm/mrad with Castrop formulae. Mean/95% quantile relative image distortion was 0.49/1.23%, 0.41/1.05%, and 0.40/0.98% for scenarios 1 and 3 and 1.09/2.71%, 1.07/2.66%, and 1.06/2.64% for scenario 2 with HofferQ, Haigis, and Castrop formulae.

Conclusion

Matrix representation of the pseudophakic eye allows for a simple and straightforward prediction of OOM and MOM of the pseudophakic eye after cataract surgery. OOM and MOM could be used for estimating monocular image distortions, or differences in overall or meridional magnifications between eyes.

Prediction of ocular magnification and aniseikonia after cataract surgery

BACKGROUND

Ocular magnification and aniseikonia after cataract surgery has been widely ignored in modern cataract surgery. The purpose of this study was to analyse ocular magnification and inter-individual differences in a normal cataract population with a focus on monovision.

METHODS

From a large dataset containing biometric measurements (IOLMaster 700) of both eyes of 9734 patients prior to cataract surgery, eyes were indexed randomly as primary (P) and secondary (S). Intraocular lens power (IOLP) was derived for the HofferQ, Haigis and Castrop formulae for emmetropia for P and emmetropia or myopia (-0.5 to -2 dpt) for S to simulate monovision. Based on the pseudophakic eye model in addition to these formulae, ocular magnification was extracted using matrix algebra (refraction and translation matrices and a system matrix describing the optical property of the entire spectacle corrected or uncorrected eye).

RESULTS

With emmetropia for P and S the IOLP differences (S-P) showed a standard deviation of 0.162/0.156/0.157 dpt and ocular magnification differences yielded a standard deviation of 0.0414/0.0405/0.0408 mm/mrad for the HofferQ/Haigis/Castrop setting. Simulating monovision, the myopic eye (S) showed a systematically smaller mean absolute spectacle corrected ocular magnification than the emmetropic eye (-0.0351/-0.0340/-0.0336, respectively, relative magnification around 2%). If myopia in the S eye remains uncorrected, the reduction of ocular magnification is much smaller (around 0.2-0.3%).

CONCLUSION

Vergence formulae for IOLP calculation sometimes implicitly define a pseudophakic eye model which can be directly used to predict ocular magnification after cataract surgery. Despite a strong similarity of both eyes, ocular magnification does not fully match between eyes and the prediction of ocular magnification and aniseikonia might be relevant to avoid eikonic problems in the pseudophakic eye.

The effects of optically and digitally simulated aniseikonia on stereopsis

Purpose

To simulate both lens‐induced and screen‐induced aniseikonia, and to assess its influence on stereopsis. Additionally, to determine if screen‐based size differences could neutralise the effects of lens‐induced aniseikonia.

Method

A four‐circle (4‐C) paradigm was developed, where one circle appears in front or behind the others because of crossed or uncrossed disparity. This stereotest was used for three investigations: (1) Comparison with the McGill modified random dot stereogram (RDS), with anisometropia introduced with +2 D spheres and cylinders, and with aniseikonia introduced with 6% overall and 6% meridional (×180, ×90) magnifiers before the right eye; (2) Comparison of lens‐induced and screen‐induced 6% overall and meridional magnifications and (3) Determining if lens and screen effects neutralised, by opposing 6% lens‐induced magnification to the right eye with screen‐inducements of either 6% left eye magnification or 6% right eye minification. A pilot study of the effect of masking versus not masking the surround was also conducted.

Results

The 4‐C test gave higher stereo‐thresholds than the RDS test by 0.5 ± 0.2 log units across both anisometropic and aniseikonic conditions. However, variations in power, meridian and magnification affected the two tests similarly. The pilot study indicated that surround masking improved neutralisation of screen and lens effects. With masking, lens‐induced and screen‐induced magnifications increased stereo‐thresholds similarly. With lens and screen effects opposed, for most participants stereo‐thresholds returned to baseline for overall and ×180 magnifications, but not for ×90 magnification. Only three of seven participants showed good compensation for ×90 magnification.

Conclusions

Effects of lens‐induced aniseikonia on stereopsis cannot always be successfully simulated with a screen‐based method. The ability to neutralise refractive aniseikonia using a computer‐based method, which is the basis of digital clinical measurement, was reasonably successful for overall and ×180 meridional aniseikonia, but not very successful for ×90 aniseikonia.

Measuring aniseikonia tolerance range for stereoacuity - a tool for the refractive surgeon

Objective

No method exists to measure aniseikonia tolerance in stereoacuity. The brain can compensate for 2%–3% aniseikonia (i.e. 2–3 dioptres of anisometropia) without impairing stereoacuity; however, a substantial proportion of anisometropic patients experience problems caused by disruptions of sensory fusion due to surgically induced aniseikonia. We hypothesized that individual differences in tolerance to aniseikonia exist and sought to develop a method to measure aniseikonia tolerance.

Methods

A total of 21 eye‐healthy phakic individuals older than 50 years of age and 11 patients awaiting clear lens extraction were included. Patients were tested with best corrected near and distance visual acuity, cover/uncover test, eye dominance test, stereoacuity threshold (TNO test), slit lamp examination and ocular coherence tomography. The stereoacuity threshold was determined with aniseikonia induced by different size lenses ranging from 1% to 9% magnification of both eyes in increments of 1%. The aniseikonia tolerance range (ATR) was defined as the percentage aniseikonia in which the stereoacuity threshold was maintained.

Results

We examined 32 patients with a median age of 65 (95% CI: 62–66 years), CDVA better than 6/7.5 (0.1 logMAR), and median near visual acuity better than 6/6 (0.0 logMAR). The median stereoacuity threshold was 60 arcsec (maximum 30, minimum 120). We observed large inter‐individual differences in ATR: 6/31 (19%) participants had an ATR of ≤1%, 1/31 (3%) had an ATR of 1‐5%, 7/31 (22%) had an ATR of 5‐10%, and 17/31 (54%) had an ATR of >10%.

Conclusion

We present a reliable method for measuring the amount of aniseikonia that a person can tolerate without impairing stereopsis. We report large inter‐individual differences in tolerance of aniseikonia.

Clinical Aniseikonia in Anisometropia and Amblyopia

Purpose:

Clinically, aniseikonia (a perceived difference in shape and image size between the eyes) is often neglected in anisometropic amblyopia due to assumed measurement difficulties. Therefore, we currently lack evidence on whether correction of aniseikonia is beneficial. This study aimed to determine whether subjective aniseikonia is measurable in anisometropia with or without amblyopia.

Methods:

Participants (15–52 years) with Anisometropic Amblyopia (n = 7), Anisometropia without amblyopia (n = 6) and Isometropic Controls (n = 6) were recruited. Subjective aniseikonia was measured using three clinical techniques: Robertson Technique (RT) (penlight and Maddox rod), Aniseikonia Inspector Version 3 (AI3), and the New Aniseikonia Test booklet (NAT), and a psychophysical adaptive method, the Contrast-balanced Aniseikonia Test (CAT), where dichoptic contrast adjustments compensate for any suppression.

Results:

Eighteen participants completed all tests, one Anisometropic Amblyopia participant could only complete the CAT and NAT due to fusion loss. The Anisometropic Amblyopia group exhibited the most aniseikonia (range –1.50–+10.50%) followed by Anisometropic Controls (range –3.30–+4.50%) and Isometropic Controls (range –1.50–+3.28%). There was a significant trend of more subjective aniseikonia with increasing amounts of anisometropia across all four tests (AI3 r = 0.630, p = 0.005; NAT r = 0.542, p = 0.017; RT r = 0.499, p = 0.035; CAT r = 0.440, p = 0.059. Bland Altman analysis demonstrated clinically significant levels of variability between the tests.

Conclusions:

Subjective aniseikonia can be reliably measured in patients with anisometropia and suppression. Subjective aniseikonia measurement is recommended as four of the most commonly used clinical tests did not support the 1% per dioptre rule of thumb.

Field-wide Quantification of Aniseikonia Using Dichoptic Localization

SIGNIFICANCE

We validated a novel paradigm to measure aniseikonia across the visual field and used a mathematical approach that is able to describe the magnitude and shape of aniseikonia in a concise, clinically meaningful fashion.

PURPOSE

The measurement of aniseikonia has been performed clinically for more than half a century; however, amalgamation of field-wide local variations in binocular spatial localization into clinically applicable global metrics has yet to be attempted. Thus, the goal of the current study was twofold: first, to measure field-wide aniseikonia and second, to compare how local and global metrics each capture optically induced aniseikonia.

METHODS

Twelve visually normal observers performed a dichoptic localization task at 24 locations in the visual field. This was done in four conditions: (A) while wearing red-green filters, (B) while wearing green-red filters, (C) while wearing a monocular 5% overall size lens, and (D) while wearing a monocular 6% meridional size lens. The physical settings at perceptual equality were then used to compute both local (relative magnification) and global (coefficients for Zernike terms) descriptors of aniseikonia.

RESULTS

The comparison of each lens condition to the baseline condition confirmed predicted shifts in both the sign and magnitude of aniseikonia at both the local and global levels; however, the intraobserver levels of precision were moderate, and systematic underestimations were present across all locations in conditions C and D.

CONCLUSIONS

Local and global analyses derived from dichoptic localization data were both able to capture optically induced changes in binocular spatial perception; however, solutions that address the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges associated with this paradigm are needed before clinical implementation can proceed.

Aniseikonia: A 21st Century Look

Purpose: Aniseikonia, an appreciation of image size differences between the eyes, can produce symptoms in patients, ranging from headaches to loss of fusion. The purpose of this research was to take a 21st century look at aniseikonia. Methods: Kellogg Eye Center patient records were evaluated for measurable aniseikonia in patients tested with the Aniseikonia Helper, a tablet-based application. Anaglyph slides for the synoptophore were developed to test the limits of induced aniseikonia on stereopsis and fusion. A survey was developed to determine how frequently members of the American Association of Certified Orthoptists (AACO) examine and treat patients with aniseikonia.Results: The prevalence of measurable aniseikonia in this cohort was 7.8%. Moderate amounts of induced aniseikonia, 4% induced image size disparity, disrupt fusion and can cause a loss of stereopsis. Eighty percent of responding AACO members see patients with aniseikonia and among those, 25% see them on a monthly basis. Treatment options, other than wearing contact lenses, are limited to occlusion or fogging techniques. Conclusions: Aniseikonia remains a frequent complaint among patients. The ophthalmologic community needs to use the best methods for measuring aniseikonia and to develop better methods for treating aniseikonia.

Aniseikonia and anisometropia: implications for suppression and amblyopia

Aniseikonia is a difference in the perceived size or shape of images between eyes, and can arise from a variety of physiological, neurological, retinal, and optical causes. Aniseikonia is associated with anisometropia, as both anisometropia itself and the optical correction for anisometropia can cause aniseikonia. Image size differences above one to three per cent can be clinically symptomatic. Common symptoms include asthenopia, headache and diplopia in vertical gaze. Size differences of three and more impair binocular visual functions such as binocular summation and stereopsis. Above five per cent of aniseikonia, binocular inhibition or suppression tend to occur to prevent diplopia and confusion. Aniseikonia can be measured using a range of techniques and can be corrected or reduced by prescribing contact lenses or specially designed spectacle lenses. Subjective testing of aniseikonia is the only way to accurately measure the overall perceived amount of aniseikonia. However, currently it is not routinely assessed in most clinical settings. At least two-thirds of patients with amblyopia have anisometropia, thus we may expect aniseikonia to be common in patients with anisometropic amblyopia. However, aniseikonia may not be experienced by the patient under normal binocular viewing conditions if the image from the amblyopic eye is of poor quality or is too strongly suppressed for image size differences to be recognised. This lack of binocular simultaneous perception in amblyopia may also prevent the measurement of aniseikonia, as most common techniques require direct comparisons of images seen by each eye. Current guidelines for the treatment of amblyopia advocate full correction of anisometropia to equalise image clarity, but do not address aniseikonia. Significant image size differences between eyes may lead to suppression and abnormal binocular adaptations. It is possible that correcting anisometropia and aniseikonia simultaneously, particularly at the initial diagnosis of anisometropia, would reduce the need to develop suppression and improve treatment outcomes for anisometropic amblyopia.

Aniseikonia Tests: The Role of Viewing Mode, Response Bias, and Size-Color Illusions

PURPOSE

To identify the factors responsible for the poor validity of the most common aniseikonia tests, which involve size comparisons of red-green stimuli presented haploscopically.

METHODS

Aniseikonia was induced by afocal size lenses placed before one eye. Observers compared the sizes of semicircles presented haploscopically via color filters. The main factor under study was viewing mode (free viewing versus short presentations under central fixation). To eliminate response bias, a three-response format allowed observers to respond if the left, the right, or neither semicircle appeared larger than the other. To control decisional (criterion) bias, measurements were taken with the lens-magnified stimulus placed on the left and on the right. To control for size-color illusions, measurements were made with color filters in both arrangements before the eyes and under binocular vision (without color filters).

RESULTS

Free viewing resulted in a systematic underestimation of lens-induced aniseikonia that was absent with short presentations. Significant size-color illusions and decisional biases were found that would be mistaken for aniseikonia unless appropriate action is taken.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve their validity, aniseikonia tests should use short presentations and include control conditions to prevent contamination from decisional/response biases. If anaglyphs are used, presence of size-color illusions must be checked for.

TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE

We identified optimal conditions for administration of aniseikonia tests and appropriate action for differential diagnosis of aniseikonia in the presence of response biases or size-color illusions. Our study has clinical implications for aniseikonia management.

Evaluation of the aniseikonia inspector version 3 in school-aged children

PURPOSE

It has been suggested that children perceptually adapt to changes in retinal image size in the presence of anisometropia and therefore do not display clinically significant aniseikonia. However, given that early methods of eikonometry were not child-friendly, the prevalence of this condition in children is poorly understood. Retinal image size differences may be relevant in the discussion of amblyogenesis. The computer-based Aniseikonia Inspector Version 3 (AI3) uses a simple, forced-choice method and includes calibration for heterophoria. The present study is designed to evaluate AI3 by measuring background and induced aniseikonia in children aged 5 to 13 years.

METHODS

All subjects were present for a standard-of-care eye examination and had at least 20/40 best-corrected visual acuity and no history of strabismus or amblyopia. Trials of AI3 were performed in the vertical direction only, using the 12-point test, and two trials were recorded. Each subject was randomized to have a 4% size lens added to either the right eye or the left eye. Two trials were performed in this manner, followed by two more trials with the size lens over the alternate eye.

RESULTS

Eighteen children were enrolled; three subjects were not able to complete testing because of lack of attention or understanding. Results from each condition (background aniseikonia, induced aniseikonia OD, and induced aniseikonia OS) were averaged for each patient. With the 4% size lens over the OD, mean aniseikonia measured -3.83%. With the 4% size lens over the OS, mean aniseikonia measured 4.29%.

CONCLUSIONS

Most children were able to complete aniseikonia testing with AI3. Background aniseikonia was clinically insignificant (0.59%), and induced aniseikonia measurements were close to expected values using a 4% size lens. Aniseikonia Inspector Version 3 appears to be a useful means for measuring aniseikonia in a normal pediatric population. Further study in children with anisometropia is needed.

Partial correction of irregular aniseikonia secondary to retinal traction

PURPOSE

This case report presents the management of symptomatic retinally induced aniseikonia and a short review of the literature pertaining to two clinical tests used in the measurement and management of aniseikonia. The clinician is also provided a review of how to design eikonic lenses.

CASE REPORT

A 30-year-old white male presented with symptoms of perceived image size difference after scleral buckle repair for retinal detachment in the right eye. Three measures of aniseikonia resulted in markedly different values, but all indicated larger perceived left eye image. Stereopsis was measured before and after placing an afocal magnifying lens over the right eye. Stereopsis improved immediately upon placement of the afocal lens, with further improvement after 20 minutes, and stereopsis decreased upon removal. The patient reported improved visual comfort for near work with the afocal lens. Eikonic glasses were designed, and the patient reported improved comfort for near work that has remained for over 1 year of wear. Studies evaluating the validity and reliability of the New Aniseikonia Test and the Aniseikonia Inspector are reviewed. Most studies report that induced aniseikonia is underestimated. This case report illustrates that despite the problem with underestimation, these tests are useful clinical tools to identify whether aniseikonia exists and which eye has the larger perceived image. Results can be used as a starting point when making clinical decisions about managing aniseikonia. The Aniseikonia Inspector also assists in the design of eikonic glasses.

CONCLUSIONS

Even when aniseikonia is substantial, variable in magnitude, and irregular due to retinal disease, reducing the overall aniseikonia can improve binocularity and patient's comfort noticeably for the long term. The underestimation of induced aniseikonia in clinical tests does not preclude their use as a tool in the management of symptomatic aniseikonia.

The evaluation of two new computer-based tests for measurement of Aniseikonia

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of size lens induced aniseikonia measurement with the Aniseikonia Inspector Version 1 and a newer customized version of the Aniseikonia Inspector, Version 2.

METHODS

Aniseikonia was measured on 27 subjects with both versions of the Aniseikonia Inspector in normal room illumination. Measurements of induced aniseikonia were made using size lenses in a randomized order. Twenty-five subjects were further tested in the dark using target sizes of equal visual angle for both tests. Repeatability of the intrinsic aniseikonia measurement was assessed on five subjects using randomized testing order for instrument and light and dark measurements.

RESULTS

In normal illumination, the mean slopes for plots of induced aniseikonia vs. size lens magnification for Version 1 were 0.883 and 0.838 for the vertical and horizontal meridians, respectively. For Version 2, the corresponding slopes were 1.162 and 1.043. In the dark and using targets of the same size for both tests, the slopes for Version 1 were 1.038 in the vertical meridian and 0.866 in the horizontal meridian whereas for Version 2, the slopes were 1.195 in the vertical meridian and 1.127 in the horizontal meridian. The amount of underestimation or overestimation within any given testing condition showed considerable intersubject variation. Version 1 was more repeatable than 2, particularly in the vertical meridian.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, the most accurate and repeatable measurement of aniseikonia was found with Version 1 in the vertical meridian in the dark. Measurement of aniseikonia in the horizontal meridian appears to be less reliable. Version 2 overestimates size lens-induced aniseikonia under all testing conditions. Intersubject variation in slopes of induced aniseikonia vs. size lens magnification should be further addressed.

Binocular vision and refractive surgery

Binocular status can have an effect on the outcome of refractive surgery. Some accommodative deviations and anisometropia can be managed effectively. Fully accommodative esotropia has been successfully treated in young patients but the outcome can be less predictable in older patients. High anisometropes are usually unaffected by the change in aniseikonia following refractive surgery but there are exceptions. Failure to recognise and appropriately classify a binocular vision anomaly pre-surgically can result in symptoms that are difficult to manage post-operatively. Refractive surgery producing a binocular vision anomaly where there was none pre-operatively is less common. I present a review of the literature discussing the relationship between binocular vision anomalies and refractive surgery, illustrating the findings with published reports of successful and unsuccessful binocular postoperative outcomes. I argue that predicting the binocular outcome should be considered pre-operatively for every refractive surgery patient.