Effect of Simulated and Real Spherical and Astigmatism Defocus on Visual Acuity and Image Quality Score.
Journal
Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry
ISSN: 1538-9235
Titre abrégé: Optom Vis Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8904931
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2020
01 2020
Historique:
entrez:
3
1
2020
pubmed:
3
1
2020
medline:
13
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31895276
doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001463
pii: 00006324-202001000-00007
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
36-44Références
Rio D, Legras R. Which Ratio of Areas Improves Vision Quality in Simultaneous Focus Optics? Optom Vis Sci 2015;92:429–36.
Benard Y, Lopez-Gil N, Legras R. Subjective Depth of Field in Presence of 4th-order and 6th-order Zernike Spherical Aberration Using Adaptive Optics Technology. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010;36:2129–38.
Cataract Refract Surgery Today Europe (CRSTEurope). Plainis S, Charman WN, Pallikaris IG. The Physiologic Mechanism of Accommodation; April 2014. Available at: https://crstodayeurope.com/articles/2014-apr/the-physiologic-mechanism-of-accommodation/. Accessed September 25, 2019.
Rio D, Woog K, Legras R. Effect of Age, Decentration, Aberrations and Pupil Size on Subjective Image Quality with Concentric Bifocal Optics. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2016;36:411–20.
Dehnert A, Bach M, Heinrich SP. Subjective Visual Acuity with Simulated Defocus. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011;31:625–31.
Legras R, Chateau N, Charman WN. A Method for Simulation of Foveal Vision during Wear of Corrective Lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:729–38.
Ohlendorf A, Tabernero J, Schaeffel F. Visual Acuity with Simulated and Real Astigmatic Defocus. Optom Vis Sci 2011;88:562–9.
Remón L, Benlloch J, Pons A, et al. Visual Acuity with Computer Simulated and Lens-induced Astigmatism. Opt Appl 2014;44:521–31.
Smith G, Jacobs RJ, Chan CD. Effect of Defocus on Visual Acuity as Measured by Source and Observer Methods. Optom Vis Sci 1989;66:430–5.
Legras R, Benard Y. Measurement and Prediction of Subjective Gradations of Images in Presence of Monochromatic Aberrations. Vision Res 2013;86:52–8.
Legras R, Benard Y, Lopez-Gil N. Effect of Coma and Spherical Aberration on Depth-of-focus Measured Using Adaptive Optics and Computationally Blurred Images. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012;38:458–69.
Read SA, Collins MJ, Carney LG. A Review of Astigmatism and Its Possible Genesis. Clin Exp Optom 2007;90:5–19.
Tejedor J, Murube J. Choosing the Location of Corneal Incision Based on Preexisting Astigmatism in Phacoemulsification. Am J Ophthalmol 2005;139:767–76.
Ornek K, Yalçindag FN, Kanpolat A, et al. Corneal Topographic Changes After Retinal Detachment Surgery. Cornea 2002;21:803–6.
Egrilmez S, Ates H, Nalcaci S, et al. Surgically Induced Corneal Refractive Change Following Glaucoma Surgery: Nonpenetrating Trabecular Surgeries versus Trabeculectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004;30:1232–9.
Hayashi K, Hayashi H. Long-term Changes in Corneal Surface Configuration After Penetrating Keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 2006;141:241–7.
Avisar R, Loya N, Yassur Y, et al. Pterygium-induced Corneal Astigmatism. Isr Med Assoc J 2000;2:14–5.
Sheedy JE, Campbell C, King-Smith E, et al. Progressive Powered Lenses: The Minkwitz Theorem. Optom Vis Sci 2005;82:916–22.
Hughes AR, Mallen EA, Elliott DB. The Visual Impact of Lens-induced Astigmatism Is Linked to Habitual Axis. Optom Vis Sci 2017;94:260–4.
Vinas M, de Gracia P, Dorronsoro C, et al. Astigmatism Impact on Visual Performance: Meridional and Adaptational Effects. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:1430–42.
Sheedy JE, Truong SD, Hayes JR. What Are the Visual Benefits of Eyelid Squinting? Optom Vis Sci 2003;80:740–4.
International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Radiocommunications Sector: Methodology for the Subjective Assessment of the Quality of Television Pictures (1974–2002); 2002. Available at: https://standards.globalspec.com/std/470458/itu-r-bt-500. Accessed September 25, 2019.
Legras R, Rio D. Effect of Number of Zones on Subjective Vision in Concentric Bifocal Optics. Optom Vis Sci 2015;92:1056–62.
Mok AK, Chung CS, Kwok TWA. Simple Clinical Test for Perception of Progressive Addition Lens Peripheral Image Blur. A Pilot Study. J Optom 2011;4:30–4.
Vandermeer G, Rio D, Gicquel JJ, et al. Subjective through-focus Quality of Vision with Various Versions of Modified Monovision. Br J Ophthalmol 2015;99:997–1003.
Yacoub E, Harel N, Uğurbil K. High-field fMRI Unveils Orientation Columns in Humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008;105:10607–12.
Atchison DA, Guo H, Charman WN, et al. Blur Limits for Defocus, Astigmatism and Trefoil. Vision Res 2009;49:2393–403.
Tabernero J, Klyce SD, Sarver EJ, et al. Functional Optical Zone of the Cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:1053–60.