Does visual acuity predict visual preference in progressive addition lenses? / ¿La agudeza visual predice la preferencia visual en lentes de adición progresiva?

Purpose: We aimed to determine if visual acuity (VA) could differentiate the quality of vision with two ophthalmic lenses with unwanted astigmatism. Methods: Twenty presbyopic subjects (48 to 62 years old; VA better than 0.0 logMAR) graded the magnitude of their preference between two progressive addition lenses (plano addition 2.00D) and their visual acuities were measured with both lenses at various eccentricities from -12 to +12 mm from the near vision point every 3 mm in controlled conditions. Results: The Lens with the least peripheral astigmatism was preferred by 75% of the subjects. VA measured at the near vision point was statistically worse (p<0.01) with this lens whereas the contrary was observed in the periphery (± 12 and -9 mm of eccentricity). The Friedman test shows that the eccentricity (p<0.001) has a significant effect on visual acuity. However, the lens did not show any significant effect (p=0.76). The choice of the favorite lens was predicted for only 35% when considering central VA (up to 6mm) and 80% of the subjects when considering peripheral VA (9 to 12mm). However, the magnitude of the difference could be predicted by peripheral VA in only 60% of the subjects. Conclusion: High contrast Visual acuity was clearly able to differentiate the 2 lens designs tested in our experiment. However, even under the controlled conditions of this study, it was not possible to predict the quality of vision, as measured by a subjective appreciation, through progressive addition lenses at various eccentricities from the near vision with an addition of 2.0D.(AU)

Does visual acuity predict visual preference in progressive addition lenses?

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine if visual acuity (VA) could differentiate the quality of vision with two ophthalmic lenses with unwanted astigmatism. METHODS: Twenty presbyopic subjects (48 to 62 years old; VA better than 0.0 logMAR) graded the magnitude of their preference between two progressive addition lenses (plano addition 2.00D) and their visual acuities were measured with both lenses at various eccentricities from -12 to +12 mm from the near vision point every 3 mm in controlled conditions. RESULTS: The Lens with the least peripheral astigmatism was preferred by 75% of the subjects. VA measured at the near vision point was statistically worse (p<0.01) with this lens whereas the contrary was observed in the periphery (± 12 and -9 mm of eccentricity). The Friedman test shows that the eccentricity (p<0.001) has a significant effect on visual acuity. However, the lens did not show any significant effect (p=0.76). The choice of the favorite lens was predicted for only 35% when considering central VA (up to 6mm) and 80% of the subjects when considering peripheral VA (9 to 12mm). However, the magnitude of the difference could be predicted by peripheral VA in only 60% of the subjects. CONCLUSION: High contrast Visual acuity was clearly able to differentiate the 2 lens designs tested in our experiment. However, even under the controlled conditions of this study, it was not possible to predict the quality of vision, as measured by a subjective appreciation, through progressive addition lenses at various eccentricities from the near vision with an addition of 2.0D.

Subjective Evaluation of Defocus and Astigmatism Combinations Using Image Simulation in Presbyopes.

SIGNIFICANCE: Image simulation is a useful and efficient tool to explore the impact of defocus and astigmatism combinations on visual acuity and image quality score when accommodation is taken into account. PURPOSE: The goal of this experiment was to determine if a simulation is able to predict visual acuity and image quality score (IQS) with defocus and astigmatism combinations in presbyopes. METHODS: We measured visual acuity and IQS in five defocus and astigmatism combinations in either real or simulated conditions. In real conditions, the subjects viewed a stimulus through an ophthalmic lens or a deformable mirror. In simulated conditions, subjects viewed images of the same stimulus with simulated blur. The amounts of defocus and astigmatism combinations of a progressive addition lens in near vision were generated through a static correction of the subject's aberrations. We simulated three levels of accommodation: subject could not accommodate (FOC0), subject could accommodate to the less hyperopic focal point (FOC1), or subject could accommodate to the circle of least confusion (FOC2). RESULTS: Visual acuity or IQS did not differ between mirror and progressive addition lens conditions. Visual acuity measured in real blur conditions differed significantly from that in FOC0 simulated blur condition but were similar to that in FOC1 and FOC2 simulated blur conditions. Image quality score obtained in real conditions were between scores measured with the FOC0 and FOC1 simulated conditions, suggesting that the subjects were able to produce a low level of accommodation. CONCLUSIONS: Accommodation may play a role when comparing optical and simulated defocus and astigmatism combinations. Presbyopic subjects are able to produce a low level of accommodation that may counterbalance a part of the deleterious effect of the astigmatism on image quality. Simulation remains a useful tool if the correct accommodation state is taken into account.

Effect of Simulated and Real Spherical and Astigmatism Defocus on Visual Acuity and Image Quality Score.

SIGNIFICANCE: Image simulation is a useful and efficient tool to explore the impact of spherical and astigmatic blur on visual acuity (VA) and image gradation. It could help to design new optical corrections more efficiently and rapidly. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of simulated (convolution by an artificial eye) and real spherical and astigmatic defocus on VA and image gradation. METHODS: Experiments were performed under highly controlled conditions: dynamic correction of the subjects' aberrations at 1 Hz and application of an artificial pupil. In experiment 1, Landolt C VA was measured in various conditions of spherical and astigmatism defocus. The amounts of spherical or positive astigmatic defocus oriented at 45° that gives a Landolt C VA of 0.0, 0.2, and 0.5 logMAR were measured in experiment 2. In experiment 3, the subjects scored the quality of the perceived image (three high-contrast 0.4 logMAR letters) with a five-item continuous grading scale. RESULTS: Simulated blur was always more detrimental than optical blur. We measured a difference of 0.08 ± 0.03 and 0.11 ± 0.05 logMAR between both conditions, respectively, in presence of spherical and astigmatism defocus. An average ± standard deviation difference of 0.16 ± 0.06 D (i.e., spherical defocus) and 0.24 ± 0.15 D (i.e., astigmatism defocus) was observed between simulated and real optics blur to provide a given VA. The differences of image quality score between both conditions were, respectively, 15.13 ± 9.63 and 13.33 ± 4.83 for spherical and astigmatism defocus. Most of the differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a difference of about 20 and 35% between simulated and real optics blur, respectively, in presence of spherical and astigmatism blur. However, the difference between both methods remains equal to or below the clinically significant difference.

Perceptual impact of astigmatism induction in presbyopes.

We investigated the effect of induced astigmatism on subjective best focus and on visual acuity in 28 subjects of different ages (pre-presbyopic and presbyopic) and with different refractive profiles (emmetropes and astigmats). Measurements were performed using a custom-developed Adaptive Optics system, which allowed correction of high order aberrations and induction of astigmatism (0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2.0 D; axis: 180°, 45° and 22.5°). Upon induction of astigmatism, best focus shifted towards negative values in pre-presbyopic emmetropic eyes (by -0.14 D for 0.5 D and by -0.33 D for 2.0 D), while it shifted towards positive values in presbyopes, both in emmetropic presbyopes (by +0.04 D for 0.50 D and by +0.16 D for 2.0 D) and in astigmatic presbyopes (by +0.23 D for 0.50 D and by +0.40 D for 2.0 D). Also, visual acuity was most sensitive to astigmatism induction in pre-presbyopic emmetropes and least sensitive in presbyopes, particularly when high order aberrations were corrected: visual acuity ratio with/without astigmatism was: 0.74/0.85/0.98 (for astigmatism induced at 180°) and 0.68/0.73/0.86 at 45°, for pre-presbyopic emmetropes/presbyopic emmetropes/presbyopic astigmats. These findings may be connected to long term exposure to astigmatism in astigmats and corrected presbyopes.

Impact of astigmatism and high-order aberrations on subjective best focus.

We studied the role of native astigmatism and ocular aberrations on best-focus setting and its shift upon induction of astigmatism in 42 subjects (emmetropes, myopes, hyperopes, with-the-rule [WTR] and against-the-rule [ATR] myopic astigmats). Stimuli were presented in a custom-developed adaptive optics simulator, allowing correction for native aberrations and astigmatism induction (+1 D; 6-mm pupil). Best-focus search consisted on randomized-step interleaved staircase method. Each subject searched best focus for four different images, and four different conditions (with/without aberration correction, with/without astigmatism induction). The presence of aberrations induced a significant shift in subjective best focus (0.4 D; p < 0.01), significantly correlated (p = 0.005) with the best-focus shift predicted from optical simulations. The induction of astigmatism produced a statistically significant shift of the best-focus setting in all groups under natural aberrations (p = 0.001), and in emmetropes and in WTR astigmats under corrected aberrations (p < 0.0001). Best-focus shift upon induced astigmatism was significantly different across groups, both for natural aberrations and AO-correction (p < 0.0001). Best focus shifted in opposite directions in WTR and ATR astigmats upon induction of astigmatism, symmetrically with respect to the best-focus shift in nonastigmatic myopes. The shifts are consistent with a bias towards vertical and horizontal retinal blur in WTR and ATR astigmats, respectively, indicating adaptation to native astigmatism.

Influence of spherical aberration, stimulus spatial frequency, and pupil apodisation on subjective refractions.

PURPOSE: To test competing hypotheses (Stiles Crawford pupil apodising or superior imaging of high spatial frequencies by the central pupil) for the pupil size independence of subjective refractions in the presence of primary spherical aberration. METHODS: Subjective refractions were obtained with a variety of test stimuli (high contrast letters, urban cityscape, high and low spatial frequency gratings) while modulating pupil diameter, levels of primary spherical aberration and pupil apodisation. Subjective refractions were also obtained with low-pass and high-pass stimuli and using 'darker' and 'sharper' subjective criteria. RESULTS: Subjective refractions for stimuli containing high spatial frequencies focus a near paraxial region of the pupil and are affected only slightly by level of Seidel spherical aberration, degree of pupil apodisation and pupil diameter, and generally focused a radius of about 1-1.5 mm from the pupil centre. Low spatial frequency refractions focus a marginal region of the pupil, and are significantly affected by level of spherical aberration, amount of pupil apodisation, and pupil size. Clinical refractions that employ the 'darker' or 'sharper' subjective criteria bias the patient to use lower or higher spatial frequencies, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the presence of significant levels of spherical aberration, the pupil size independence of subjective refractions occurs with or without Stiles Crawford apodisation for refractions that optimise high spatial frequency content in the image. If low spatial frequencies are optimised by a subjective refraction, spherical refractive error varies with spherical aberration, pupil size, and level of apodisation. As light levels drop from photopic to scotopic, therefore, we expect a shift from pupil size independent to pupil size dependent subjective refractions. Emphasising a 'sharper' criterion during subjective refractions will improve image quality for high spatial frequencies and generate pupil size independent refractions.

Evaluation of a global algorithm for wavefront reconstruction for Shack-Hartmann wave-front sensors and thick fundus reflectors.

PURPOSE: Conventional aberration analysis by a Shack-Hartmann aberrometer is based on the implicit assumption that an injected probe beam reflects from a single fundus layer. In fact, the biological fundus is a thick reflector and therefore conventional analysis may produce errors of unknown magnitude. We developed a novel computational method to investigate this potential failure of conventional analysis. METHODS: The Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor was simulated by computer software and used to recover by two methods the known wavefront aberrations expected from a population of normally-aberrated human eyes and bi-layer fundus reflection. The conventional method determines the centroid of each spot in the SH data image, from which wavefront slopes are computed for least-squares fitting with derivatives of Zernike polynomials. The novel 'global' method iteratively adjusted the aberration coefficients derived from conventional centroid analysis until the SH image, when treated as a unitary picture, optimally matched the original data image. RESULTS: Both methods recovered higher order aberrations accurately and precisely, but only the global algorithm correctly recovered the defocus coefficients associated with each layer of fundus reflection. The global algorithm accurately recovered Zernike coefficients for mean defocus and bi-layer separation with maximum error <0.1%. The global algorithm was robust for bi-layer separation up to 2 dioptres for a typical SH wavefront sensor design. For 100 randomly generated test wavefronts with 0.7 D axial separation, the retrieved mean axial separation was 0.70 D with standard deviations (S.D.) of 0.002 D. CONCLUSIONS: Sufficient information is contained in SH data images to measure the dioptric thickness of dual-layer fundus reflection. The global algorithm is superior since it successfully recovered the focus value associated with both fundus layers even when their separation was too small to produce clearly separated spots, while the conventional analysis misrepresents the defocus component of the wavefront aberration as the mean defocus for the two reflectors. Our novel global algorithm is a promising method for SH data image analysis in clinical and visual optics research for human and animal eyes.

Astigmatism impact on visual performance: meridional and adaptational effects.

PURPOSE: Astigmatic subjects are adapted to their astigmatism and perceptually recalibrate upon its correction. However, the extent to which prior adaptation to astigmatism affects visual performance, whether this effect is axis dependent, and the time scale of potential changes in visual performance after astigmatism correction are not known. Moreover, the effect of possible positive interactions of aberrations (astigmatism and coma) might be altered after recalibration to correction of astigmatism. METHODS: Visual acuity (VA) was measured in 25 subjects (astigmats and non-astigmats, corrected and uncorrected) under induction of astigmatism and combinations of astigmatism and coma while controlling subject aberrations. Astigmatism (1.00 diopter) was induced at three different orientations, the natural axis, the perpendicular orientation, and 45 degrees for astigmats and at 0, 90, and 45 degrees for non-astigmats. Experiments were also performed, adding coma (0.41 µm at a relative angle of 45 degrees) to the same mentioned astigmatism. Fourteen different conditions were measured using an 8-Alternative Forced Choice procedure with Tumbling E letters and a QUEST algorithm. Longitudinal measurements were performed up to 6 months. Uncorrected astigmats were provided with proper astigmatic correction after the first session. RESULTS: In non-astigmats, inducing astigmatism at 90 degrees, produced a statistically lower reduction in VA than at 0 or 45 degrees, whereas in astigmats, the lower decrease in VA occurred for astigmatism induced at the natural axis. Six months of astigmatic correction did not reduce the insensitivity to astigmatic induction along the natural axis. Differences after orientation of astigmatism were also found when adding coma to astigmatism. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of astigmatism on VA is greatly dependent on the orientation of the induced astigmatism, even in non-astigmats. Previous experience to astigmatism plays a significant role on VA, with a strong bias toward the natural axis. In contrast to perceived isotropy, the correction of astigmatism does not shift the bias in VA from the natural axis of astigmatism.

Visual acuity under combined astigmatism and coma: optical and neural adaptation effects.

Previous studies suggest that certain combinations of coma and astigmatism improve optical quality over astigmatism alone. We tested these theoretical predictions on 20 patients. Visual acuity (VA) was measured under best spherical correction for different conditions: low- and higher order aberrations corrected, in the presence of 0.5 D of induced astigmatism, and adding different amounts of coma to 0.5 D of astigmatism. Measurements were performed for different relative angles between coma and astigmatism and for selected conditions, also through-focus. Adding coma (0.23 µm for 6-mm pupil) to astigmatism resulted in a clear increase of VA in 6 subjects, consistently with theoretical optical predictions, while VA decreased when coma was added to astigmatism in 7 subjects. In addition, in the presence of astigmatism only, VA decreased more than 10% with respect to all aberrations corrected in 13 subjects, while VA was practically insensitive to the addition of astigmatism in 4 subjects. The effects were related to the presence of natural astigmatism and whether this was habitually corrected or uncorrected. The fact that the expected performance occurs mainly in eyes with no natural astigmatism suggests relevant neural adaptation effects in eyes normally exposed to astigmatic blur.

Combining coma with astigmatism can improve retinal image over astigmatism alone.

We demonstrate that certain combinations of non-rotationally symmetric aberrations (coma and astigmatism) can improve retinal image quality over the condition with the same amount of astigmatism alone. Simulations of the retinal image quality in terms of Strehl Ratio, and measurements of Visual Acuity under controlled aberrations with adaptive optics were performed, varying defocus, astigmatism and coma. Astigmatism ranged between 0 and 1.5D. Defocus ranged typically between -1 and 1D. The amount of coma producing best retinal image quality (for a given relative angle between astigmatism and coma) was computed and the amount was found to be different from zero in all cases (except for 0D of astigmatism). For example, for a 6mm pupil, in the presence of 0.5D of astigmatism, a value of coma of 0.23mum produced (for best focus) a peak improvement in Strehl Ratio by a factor of 1.7, over having 0.5D of astigmatism alone. The improvement holds over a range of >1.5D of defocus and peak improvements were found for amounts of coma ranging from 0.15mum to 0.35mum. We measured VA under corrected high order aberrations, astigmatism alone (0.5D) and astigmatism in combination with coma (0.23mum), with and without adaptive optics correction of all the other aberrations, in two subjects. We found that the combination of coma with astigmatism improved decimal VA by a factor of 1.28 (28%) and 1.47 (47%) in both subjects, over VA with astigmatism alone when all the rest of aberrations were corrected. Nevertheless, in the presence of typical normal levels of HOA the effect of the coma/astigmatism interaction is considerably diminished.

Simulated optical performance of custom wavefront soft contact lenses for keratoconus.

PURPOSE: Outstanding improvements in vision can theoretically be expected using contact lenses that correct monochromatic aberrations of the eye. Imperfections in such correction inherent to contact lenses are lens flexure, translation, rotation, and tear layer effects. The effects of pupil size and accommodation on ocular aberration may cause further difficulties. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether nonaxisymmetric soft contact lenses could efficiently compensate for higher-order aberrations induced by keratoconus and to what extent rotation and translation of the lens would degrade this perfect correction. METHODS: Height topography data of nine moderate to severe keratoconus corneas were obtained using the Maastricht Shape Topographer. Three-dimensional ray tracing was applied to each elevation topography to calculate aberrations in the form of a phase error mapping. The effect of a nonaxisymmetric soft contact lens tailored to the corneal aberrations was simulated by adding an opposite phase error mapping that would theoretically compensate all corneal-induced optical aberrations of the keratoconus eyes. Translation (0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0 mm) and rotation (2.5 degrees, 5.0 degrees, 7.5 degrees, and 10 degrees ) mismatches were introduced. The modulation transfer function (MTF) of each eye with each displaced correction and with various pupil sizes (3, 5, and 7 mm) was deduced from the residual phase error mapping. A single performance criterion (mtfA) was calculated as the area under the MTF over a limited spatial frequency range (5 to 15 periods per degree). Finally, the ratio (RmtfA) of corrected mtfA over uncorrected mtfA provided an estimate of the global enhancement in contrast sensitivity with the customized lens. RESULTS: The contrast improvement ratios RmtfA with perfectly located lenses were for an average pupil size of 4.5 mm between 6.5 and 200. For small translation errors (0.25 mm), RmtfA ranged between 2 and 7. The largest lens translation tested (1 mm) often resulted in poorer performance than without correction (RmtfA <1). More than threefold improvements were achieved with any of the angular errors experimented. RmtfA values showed significant variations for pupil diameters between 3 and 7 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional aberration-customized soft contact lenses may drastically improve visual performance in patients with keratoconus. However, such lenses should be well positioned on the cornea. In particular, translation errors should not exceed 0.5 mm. Angular errors appeared to be less critical. It is further questioned whether the visual system is able to adapt to variations in optical performance of the correction in situ due to lens positioning and pupil size.

Aberration generation by contact lenses with aspheric and asymmetric surfaces.

PURPOSE: We explored the potential of aberration correction in the human eye by using a new generation of soft contact lenses with aspheric and asymmetric surfaces. METHODS: Soft contact lens samples were designed with one asymmetrical surface (front) and one spherical (back) to produce predetermined amounts of desired pure defocus, astigmatism, trefoil, coma, and spherical aberration. Contact lens wavefront aberrations were measured ex vivo using a Fizeau-Tolanski interferometer and compared with the in vivo wavefronts obtained by subtracting the aberrations of the eye with and without the contact lenses. These second set of measurements were obtained using a Shack-Hartmann sensor. RESULTS: We found that an aberration-free contact lens sample induced in the eye a small amount of residual aberration. We obtained a good match between the ex vivo and in vivo wavefront measurements for most of the samples of the contact lenses. CONCLUSIONS: The aberrations generated by soft contact lenses on the eye were predictable. Rotations and translations of the contact lenses with respect to correct position on the eye were, however, the main limitation for precise correction of the ocular aberrations.

Optimising RGP lens fitting in normal eyes using 3D topographic data.

PURPOSE: To analyse, retrospectively, the effect of fitting characteristics on comfort of wear and the role that 3D topographic data can play in attaining an optimal lens fit with rigid gas permeable (RGP) contact lenses in normal eyes. METHODS: Included were 60 normal myopic eyes (1.00-5.00 D) with astigmatism limited to 2.00 D. Lenses were ordered empirically, based on traditional fitting rules. RESULTS: The initial fit based on traditional computation was accepted in 40% of the eyes. To achieve an acceptable fit, 15% of the eyes needed an adaptation of the back optic zone radius, in 28% switching from a multicurve to an aspheric lens design was indicated and in 17% a non-rotational symmetric lens design was favoured. The reason for changing the lens parameters could in 88% be attributed to mid-peripheral differences between corneal shape as found with 3D corneal topography. Average comfort of wear improved statistically significantly (chi(2), P<0.05) from 5.2 initially to 7.7 after 3 months in the group with optimal lens fits, while comfort slightly decreased (not significant) in the group with sub-optimal fits. Switching to a non-rotational symmetric lens design, when indicated, improved comfort significantly (chi(2), P<0.05) from 5.0 to 7.3. CONCLUSION: In normal eyes, the measurement of corneal shape, especially in the mid-peripheral regions, is of importance to optimise RGP lens fit. Optimised lens fits increases comfort of wear.