Drifts in real-time partial wavefront correction and how to avoid them

Aberrations and accommodation

Modern methods of measuring the refractive state of the eye include wavefront sensors which make it possible to monitor both static and dynamic changes of the ocular wavefront while the eye observes a target positioned at different distances away from the eye. In addition to monitoring the ocular aberrations, wavefront refraction methods allow measurement of the accommodative response while viewing with the eye's habitual chromatic and monochromatic aberrations present, with these aberrations removed, and with specific aberrations added or removed. A large number of experiments describing the effects of accommodation on aberrations and vice versa are reviewed, pointing out the implications for fundamental questions related to the mechanism of accommodation.

There is more to accommodation of the eye than simply minimizing retinal blur

Eyes of children and young adults change their optical power to focus nearby objects at the retina. But does accommodation function by trial and error to minimize blur and maximize contrast as is generally accepted? Three experiments in monocular and monochromatic vision were performed under two conditions while aberrations were being corrected. In the first condition, feedback was available to the eye from both optical vergence and optical blur. In the second, feedback was only available from target blur. Accommodation was less precise for the second condition, suggesting that it is more than a trial-and-error function. Optical vergence itself seems to be an important cue for accommodation.

Human eyes do not need monochromatic aberrations for dynamic accommodation

Purpose

To determine if human accommodation uses the eye's own monochromatic aberrations to track dynamic accommodative stimuli.

Methods

Wavefront aberrations were measured while subjects monocularly viewed a monochromatic Maltese cross moving sinusoidally around 2D of accommodative demand with 1D amplitude at 0.2 Hz. The amplitude and phase (delay) of the accommodation response were compared to the actual vergence of the stimulus to obtain gain and temporal phase, calculated from wavefront aberrations recorded over time during experimental trials. The tested conditions were as follows: Correction of all the subject's aberrations except defocus (C); Correction of all the subject's aberrations except defocus and habitual second‐order astigmatism (AS); Correction of all the subject's aberrations except defocus and odd higher‐order aberrations (HOAs); Correction of all the subject's aberrations except defocus and even HOAs (E); Natural aberrations of the subject's eye, i.e., the adaptive‐optics system only corrected the optical system's aberrations (N); Correction of all the subject's aberrations except defocus and fourth‐order spherical aberration (SA). The correction was performed at 20 Hz and each condition was repeated six times in randomised order.

Results

Average gain (±2 standard errors of the mean) varied little across conditions; between 0.55 ± 0.06 (SA), and 0.62 ± 0.06 (AS). Average phase (±2 standard errors of the mean) also varied little; between 0.41 ± 0.02 s (E), and 0.47 ± 0.02 s (O). After Bonferroni correction, no statistically significant differences in gain or phase were found in the presence of specific monochromatic aberrations or in their absence.

Conclusions

These results show that the eye's monochromatic aberrations are not necessary for accommodation to track dynamic accommodative stimuli.