Retinal Responses to Simulated Optical Blur Using a Novel Dead Leaves ERG Stimulus.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate retinal responses to different types and magnitudes of simulated optical blur presented at specific retinal eccentricities using naturalistic images. Methods: Electroretinograms (ERGs) were recorded from 27 adults using 30-degree dead leaves naturalistic images, digitally blurred with one of three types of optical blur (defocus, astigmatism, and spherical aberrations), and one of three magnitudes (0.1, 0.3, or 0.5 µm) of blur. Digitally computed blur was applied to the entire image, or on an area outside the central 6 degrees or 12 degrees of retinal eccentricity. Results: ERGs were significantly affected by blur type, magnitude, and retinal eccentricity. ERGs were differentially affected by defocus and spherical aberrations; however, astigmatism had no effect on the ERGs. When blur was applied only beyond the central 12 degrees eccentricity, the ERGs were unaffected. However, when blur was applied outside the central 6 degrees, the ERG responses were significantly reduced and were no different from the ERGs recorded with entirely blurred images. Conclusions: Blur type, magnitude, and location all affect the retinal responses. Our data indicate that the retinal area between 6 and 12 degrees eccentricity has the largest effect on the retinal responses to blur. In addition, certain optical blur types appear to have a more detrimental effect on the ERGs than others. These results cannot be solely explained by changes to image contrast and spatial frequency content, suggesting that retinal neurons might be sensitive to spatial cues in order to differentiate between different blur types.

A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions.

Purpose: The Visual Adaptive Optics (VAO) is an adaptive optics visual simulator with an embedded Hartmann-Shack aberrometer that can give objective and subjective refraction measures. The aim of the present study was to compare the findings of the objective and subjective refractions from the VAO with a commercial autorefractometer (Topcon Corp., Tokyo, Japan) and a subjective refraction by an optometrist. The influence of age, refractive error type, and presence of ocular diseases was ascertained. Methods: The refractive error was obtained in 469 participants using the four techniques mentioned. Data were analyzed with power vectors mean spherical equivalent, the vertical Jackson-Cross-Cylinder, and the oblique Jackson-Cross-Cylinder. Age, refractive error type (myopia, emmetropia, hyperopia) and presence of ocular diseases (yes, no) were included as covariates. Agreement was assessed using the 95% interval of agreement. Results: The median spherical equivalent difference and the interval of agreement for all the participants with the VAO subjective, VAO objective, and autorefraction with the clinical subjective refraction were (+0.13, 1.80 diopters [D]), (+0.38, 1.80 D), and (-0.38, 2.10 D), respectively. When considering only healthy participants, the results were (+0.06, 1.70 D), (+0.38, 1.60 D) and (-0.25, 1.80 D), respectively. When considering only those participants with any ocular condition, the results with VAO subjective, VAO objective and autorefraction were (+0.13, 2.50 D), (+0.31, 2.70 D), and (-0.50, 4.80 D), respectively. Conclusions: The VAO subjective refraction is more accurate than VAO objective refraction and autorefraction, regardless of refractive error, age, or the presence of ocular conditions. The presence of ocular conditions significantly deteriorates the accuracy of all refraction methods. Translational Relevance: Reported clinical comparisons between different types of standard refraction methods and a new adaptive optics refraction instrument (VAO) are in good agreement and support the further development of this method to increase refraction accuracy and to refract quicker than standard procedures.

Author Correction: Comparison of different smartphone cameras to evaluate conjunctival hyperaemia in normal subjects.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Clinical evaluation of an automated subjective refraction method implemented in a computer-controlled motorized phoropter / Evaluación clínica de un método de refracción subjetiva automatizado implementado en un foróptero motorizado controlado por computadora

Purpose: To investigate a new algorithm to perform an automated non-cycloplegic refraction in adults. Methods: Fifty healthy subjects were measured twice (test-retest) with the new automated subjective refraction method and with the conventional clinician subjective refraction procedure. Objective refraction was also measured with the Grand Seiko WAM-5500 autorefractor. The new automated method was inspired on the root finding bisection algorithm and on the Euclidean distances in the power vector domain. The algorithm was implemented in a computer that was synchronized with a customized motorized phoropter. Repeatability was mainly assessed with the within-subject standard deviation (Sw) and accuracy was mainly assessed with the limits of agreement. Results: The within-subject standard deviations of the power vector components (M, J0, J45) obtained for the right eye are (±0.13, ±0.04, ±0.05) D and (±0.17, ±0.03, ±0.07) D, respectively, for the clinical and the automated subjective refraction methods. The limits of agreement (with the clinical method) for the automated and the objective methods are, respectively (±0.56, ±0.18, ±0.31 )D and (±0.77, ±0.15, ±0.18) D. Similar results are obtained for the left eye. Conclusions: The proposed automated method is repeatable and more accurate than objective techniques in healthy adults. However, it is not accurate enough to replace the clinical subjective refraction yet and it should be tested in a wider population in terms of age, refraction and different ocular conditions. Despite these important limitations, this method has been shown to be a potentially valuable method to improve the access to primary eye care services in developing countries

Objetivo: Investigar un nuevo algoritmo para llevar a cabo una refracción automatizada no ciclopéjica en adultos. Métodos: Se midió a cincuenta sujetos sanos dos veces (prueba-reprueba) con el nuevo método de refracción subjetiva automatizado y con al procedimiento de refracción subjetiva clínica convencional. También se midió la refracción objetiva con el autorrefractómetro Grand Seiko WAM-5500. El nuevo método automatizado está inspirado en el algoritmo de bisección de búsqueda de raíces y en las distancias Euclidianas entre los vectores de potencia. Se introdujo el algoritmo en un ordenador, sincronizado a un foróptero motorizado personalizado. La repetibilidad se valoró principalmente mediante la desviación estándar intrasujetos (Sw), evaluándose el acuerdo con los límites de concordancia. Resultados: Las desviaciones estándar intrasujetos de los componentes del vector de potencia (M, J0, J45) obtenidos para el ojo derecho fueron (±0,13, ±0,04, ±0,05) D y (±0,17, ±0,03, ±0,07) D para los métodos subjetivos de refracción clínica y automatizada, respectivamente. Los límites de concordancia (con el método clínico) para los métodos automatizado y objetivo fueron, respectivamente, (±0,56, ±0,18, ±0,31) D y (±0,77, ±0,15, ±0,18) D. Se obtuvieron resultados similares para el ojo izquierdo. Conclusiones: El método automatizado propuesto es repetible y más preciso que las técnicas objetivas en adultos sanos. Sin embargo, no es lo suficientemente preciso para sustituir aún a la refracción subjetiva clínica, y debería probarse en una población más amplia en términos de edad, refracción y situaciones oculares diferentes. A pesar de estas importantes limitaciones, este método podrá ser valioso a la hora de mejorar el acceso a los servicios de atención primaria ocular en países en desarrollo

Stimulus Unpredictability in Time, Magnitude, and Direction on Accommodation.

SIGNIFICANCE: The effect of predictability in changes of time, magnitude, and direction of the accommodation demand on the accommodation response latency and its magnitude are insignificant, which suggests that repetitive accommodative tasks such as the clinical accommodative facility test may not be influenced by potential anticipation effects. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of stimulus' time, magnitude, and direction predictability, as well as their interactions, on accommodation latency and response magnitude. METHODS: Monocular accommodative response and latency were measured in 12 young subjects for nine different conditions where the stimulus accommodative demand changed several times in a steplike fashion for a period of 120 seconds. Each change in accommodative demand could have different time duration (i.e., 1, 2, or 3 seconds), magnitude (1, 2, or 3 diopters), and/or direction (i.e., accommodation or disaccommodation). All conditions were created permuting the factors of time, magnitude, and direction with two levels each: random and not random. The baseline condition was a step signal from 0 to 2 diopters persisting for 2 seconds in both accommodative demands. After each condition, subjects were asked to provide a score from 1 to 5 in their perceived predictability. RESULTS: Friedman test conducted on the perceived predictability of each condition resulted in statistically significant differences between the nine conditions (χ = 56.57, P < .01). However, repeated-measures analysis of variance applied to latency and accommodative response magnitude did not show significant differences (P > .05). In addition, no correlation was found between the perceived predictability scores and both latency and accommodative response magnitudes between the most predictable and the most unpredictable conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects were able to perceptually notice whether the stimulus was predictable or not, although our results indicate no significant effect of stimuli predictability on either the accommodation latency or its magnitude.

Comparison of different smartphone cameras to evaluate conjunctival hyperaemia in normal subjects.

Despite the significant advantages that smartphones' cameras can provide in teleophthalmology and artificial intelligence applications, their use as black-box systems for clinical data acquisition, without adequate information of the quality of photographs can compromise data accuracy. The aim of this study is to compare the objective and subjective quantification of conjunctival redness in images obtained with calibrated and non-calibrated cameras, in different lighting conditions and optical magnifications. One hundred ninety-two pictures of the eye were taken in 4 subjects using 3 smartphone cameras{Bq, Iphone, Nexus}, 2 lighting levels{high 815 lx, low 122 lx} and 2 magnification levels{high 10x, low 6x}. Images were duplicated: one set was white balanced and color corrected (calibrated) and the other was left as it was. Each image was subjective and objectively evaluated. There were no significant differences in subjective evaluation in any of the conditions whereas many statistically significant main effects and interaction effects were shown for all the objective metrics. The clinician's evaluation was not affected by different cameras, lighting conditions or optical magnifications, demonstrating the effectiveness of the human eye's color constancy properties. However, calibration of a smartphone's camera is essential when extracting objective data from images.

Clinical evaluation of an automated subjective refraction method implemented in a computer-controlled motorized phoropter.

PURPOSE: To investigate a new algorithm to perform an automated non-cycloplegic refraction in adults. METHODS: Fifty healthy subjects were measured twice (test-retest) with the new automated subjective refraction method and with the conventional clinician subjective refraction procedure. Objective refraction was also measured with the Grand Seiko WAM-5500 autorefractor. The new automated method was inspired on the root finding bisection algorithm and on the Euclidean distances in the power vector domain. The algorithm was implemented in a computer that was synchronized with a customized motorized phoropter. Repeatability was mainly assessed with the within-subject standard deviation (Sw) and accuracy was mainly assessed with the limits of agreement. RESULTS: The within-subject standard deviations of the power vector components (M, J0, J45) obtained for the right eye are (±0.13, ±0.04, ±0.05)D and (±0.17, ±0.03, ±0.07)D, respectively, for the clinical and the automated subjective refraction methods. The limits of agreement (with the clinical method) for the automated and the objective methods are, respectively (±0.56, ±0.18, ±0.31)D and (±0.77, ±0.15, ±0.18)D. Similar results are obtained for the left eye. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed automated method is repeatable and more accurate than objective techniques in healthy adults. However, it is not accurate enough to replace the clinical subjective refraction yet and it should be tested in a wider population in terms of age, refraction and different ocular conditions. Despite these important limitations, this method has been shown to be a potentially valuable method to improve the access to primary eye care services in developing countries.

An automated and objective cover test to measure heterophoria.

Heterophoria is the relative deviation of the eyes in absence of fusional vergence. Fusional vergence can be deprived by, for example, occluding one eye while the other fixates a visual target. Then, the occluded eye will presumably deviate from its initial position by an amount that corresponds to the heterophoria. Its assessment in clinical practice is crucial for the diagnosis of non-strabismic binocular dysfunctions such as convergence insufficiency. Traditional clinical methods, like the cover test or the modified Thorington test, suffer from practitioner's subjectivity, impossibility to observe the occluding eye or unusual viewing conditions. These limitations could be overcome by using eye tracking systems to measure objectively the heterophoria. The main purpose of this study was to compare the performance of an automated and objective method to measure near heterophoria using an eye-tracker with two conventional methods: the cover-uncover test and the modified Thorington test. The eye tracking method gave us the possibility to measure the heterophoria as the deviation of the occluded eye (mimicking the cover test) or as the deviations of the occluded and fixating eyes (adhering to the theoretical definition of heterophoria). The latter method provided smaller results than the former, although on average the differences might not be clinically relevant. The proposed objective method exhibited considerably better repeatability than the two conventional clinical methods. It showed better agreement with the modified Thorington test than with the cover-uncover test, and a similar level of agreement was obtained between the two clinical methods. To conclude, the use of eye-trackers to measure heterophoria provides objective and more repeatable measures. As eye-trackers become common tools in clinical settings, their use to measure heterophoria should be the new gold standard.

Random Changes of Accommodation Stimuli: An Automated Extension of the Flippers Accommodative Facility Test.

PURPOSE: To study the accommodative dynamics for predictable and unpredictable stimuli using manual and automated accommodative facility tests Materials and Methods: Seventeen young healthy subjects were tested monocularly in two consecutive sessions, using five different conditions. Two conditions replicated the conventional monocular accommodative facility tests for far and near distances, performed with manually held flippers. The other three conditions were automated and conducted using an electro-optical system and open-field autorefractor. Two of the three automated conditions replicated the predictable manual accommodative facility tests. The last automated condition was a hybrid approach using a novel method whereby far and near-accommodative-facility tests were randomly integrated into a single test of four unpredictable accommodative demands. RESULTS: The within-subject standard deviations for far- and near-distance-accommodative reversals were (±1,±1) cycles per minute (cpm) for the manual flipper accommodative facility conditions and (±3, ±4) cpm for the automated conditions. The 95% limits of agreement between the manual and the automated conditions for far and near distances were poor: (-18, 12) and (-15, 3). During the hybrid unpredictable condition, the response time and accommodative response parameters were significantly (p < 0.05) larger for accommodation than disaccommodation responses for high accommodative demands only. The response times during the transitions 0.17/2.17 D and 0.50/4.50 D appeared to be indistinguishable between the hybrid unpredictable and the conventional predictable automated tests. CONCLUSIONS: The automated accommodative facility test does not agree with the manual flipper test results. Operator delays in flipping the lens may account for these differences. This novel test, using unpredictable stimuli, provides a more comprehensive examination of accommodative dynamics than conventional manual accommodative facility tests. Unexpectedly, the unpredictability of the stimulus did not to affect accommodation dynamics. Further studies are needed to evaluate the sensitivity of this novel hybrid technique on individuals with accommodative anomalies.

Effect of Experimental Conditions in the Accommodation Response in Myopia.

SIGNIFICANCE: The accommodative response is more affected by the type of refractive error than the method of stimulation, field of view (FOV), or stimulus depth. PURPOSE: This study aims to analyze the effect of stimulation method, stimulus depth, and FOV on the accommodation response (AR) for emmetropes (EMM), late-onset myopes (LOM), and early-onset myopes (EOM). METHODS: Monocular AR was measured in 26 young observers (n = 9 EMM, n = 8 LOM, n = 9 EOM) under 60 different viewing conditions that were the result of permuting the following factors: (1) stimulation method (free space or Badal lens viewing), (2) stimulus depth (flat or volumetric), (3) FOV (2.5, 4, 8, 10, and 30°), and (4) accommodative stimulus (AS: 0.17, 2.50, and 5.00 diopters [D]). RESULTS: Mixed analysis of variance for 2.50 D of AS resulted in a significant effect of refractive group (F = 6.77, P < .01) and FOV (F = 1.26, P = .04). There was also a significant interaction between stimulus depth and FOV (F = 2.73, P = .03) and among stimulation method, FOV, and refractive group (F = 2.42, P = .02). For AS of 5.00 D, there was a significant effect of refractive group (F = 13.88, P < .01) and stimulation method (F = 5.16, P = .03). There was also a significant interaction of stimulation method, stimulus depth, and refractive group (F = 4.08, P = .03). When controlling for all interactions, LOM showed larger lags than EMM and EOM; the AR did not significantly change for fields of 8, 10, and 30°, and it did not significantly differ for different stimulation methods or stimulus depth. CONCLUSIONS: Previously reported differences in AR when using lens-based methods compared with free space viewing may be explained by the effect of other factors such as the FOV or the depth of the stimulus. Targets with an FOV of 8 or 10° may be optimal for accurate ARs.

Suitability of open-field autorefractors as pupillometers and instrument design effects.

AIM: To determine the agreement and repeatability of the pupil measurement obtained with VIP-200 (Neuroptics), PowerRef II (Plusoptix), WAM-5500 (Grand Seiko) and study the effects of instrument design on pupillometry. METHODS: Forty patients were measured twice in low, mid and high mesopic. Repeatability was analyzed with the within-subject standard deviation (Sw) and paired t-tests. Agreement was studied with Bland-Altman plots and repeated measures ANOVA. Instrument design analysis consisted on measuring pupil size with PowerRef II simulating monocular and binocular conditions as well as with proximity cues and without proximity cues. RESULTS: The mean difference (±standard deviation) between test-retest for low, mid and high mesopic conditions were, respectively: -0.09 (±0.16), -0.05 (±0.18) and -0.08 (±0.23) mm for Neuroptics, -0.05 (±0.17), -0.12 (±0.23) and -0.17 (±0.34) mm for WAM-5500, -0.04 (±0.27), -0.13 (±0.37) and -0.11 (±0.28) mm for PowerRef II. Regarding agreement with Neuroptics, the mean difference for low, mid and high mesopic conditions were, respectively: -0.48 (±0.35), -0.83 (±0.52) and -0.38 (±0.56) mm for WAM-5500, -0.28 (±0.56), -0.70 (±0.55) and -0.61 (±0.54) mm for PowerRef II. The mean difference of binocular minus monocular pupil measurements was: -0.83 (±0.87) mm; and with proximity cues minus without proximity cues was: -0.30 (±0.77) mm. CONCLUSION: All the instruments show similar repeat-ability. In all illumination conditions, agreement of Neuroptics with WAM-5500 and PowerRef II is not good enough, which can be partially induced due to their open field design.

Effect of apparent depth cues on accommodation in a Badal optometer.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to analyse the effect of peripheral depth cues on accommodation in Badal optometers. METHODS: Monocular refractions at 0.17 and 5.00 D of accommodative stimulus were measured with the PowerRef II autorefractor (Plusoptix Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, USA). Subjects looked (randomly) at four different scenes, one real scene comprising familiar objects at different depth planes (Real) and three virtual scenes comprising different two-dimensional pictures seen through a Badal lens. The first image consisted of a photograph of the real scene taken in conditions that closely mimic a healthy standard human eye performance (out-of-focus [OoF] blur); the second image was the same photograph rendered with a depth of focus to infinity (OoF sharpness); and finally the third image consisted of a fixation target and a even white surrounding (White). In all cases the field of view was 25.0° and the fixation target was a Maltese cross subtending to two degrees. RESULTS: Twenty-eight right eyes from healthy young subjects were measured. The achieved statistical power was 0.9. At 5.00 D of accommodative stimulus, the repeated measures analysis of variance was statistically significant (p < 0.05) and the corresponding Bonferroni post hoc tests showed the following mean accommodative response differences and standard deviation (p-value) between the real and the virtual scenes: real-white =-0.66 ± 0.92 D (p < 0.01); real-OoF sharpness = -0.43 ± 0.88 D (p = 0.07); real-OoF blur =-0.25 ± 0.93 D (p = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: A stimulus poor in depth cues inaccurately stimulates accommodation in Badal optometers; however, accommodation can be significantly improved in the same Badal optometer, when displaying a realistic image rich in peripheral depth cues, even though these peripheral cues (also referred to as retinal blur cues) are shown in the same plane as the fixation target. These results have important implications in stereoscopic virtual reality systems that fail to represent appropriately retinal blur.

Spherical subjective refraction with a novel 3D virtual reality based system / Refracción subjetiva esférica utilizando un nuevo sistema 3D basado en realidad virtual

Purpose: To conduct a clinical validation of a virtual reality-based experimental system that is able to assess the spherical subjective refraction simplifying the methodology of ocular refraction. Methods: For the agreement assessment, spherical refraction measurements were obtained from 104 eyes of 52 subjects using three different methods: subjectively with the experimental prototype (Subj.E) and the classical subjective refraction (Subj.C); and objectively with the WAM-5500 autorefractor (WAM). To evaluate precision (intra- and inter-observer variability) of each refractive tool independently, 26 eyes were measured in four occasions. Results: With regard to agreement, the mean difference (±SD) for the spherical equivalent (M) between the new experimental subjective method (Subj.E) and the classical subjective refraction (Subj.C) was −0.034 D (±0.454 D). The corresponding 95% Limits of Agreement (LoA) were (−0.856 D, 0.924 D). In relation to precision, intra-observer mean difference for the M component was 0.034 ± 0.195 D for the Subj.C, 0.015 ± 0.177 D for the WAM and 0.072 ± 0.197 D for the Subj.E. Inter-observer variability showed worse precision values, although still clinically valid (below 0.25 D) in all instruments. Conclusions: The spherical equivalent obtained with the new experimental system was precise and in good agreement with the classical subjective routine. The algorithm implemented in this new system and its optical configuration has been shown to be a first valid step for spherical error correction in a semiautomated way (AU)

Objetivo: Realizar una validación clínica de un sistema experimental basado en realidad virtual, capaz de evaluar la refracción subjetiva esférica simplificando la metodología de la refracción ocular. Métodos: Para evaluar la concordancia, se obtuvieron mediciones de la refracción esférica de 104 ojos pertenecientes a 52 sujetos, utilizando tres métodos diferentes: subjetivamente con el prototipo experimental (Subj.E) y la refracción subjetiva clásica (Subj.C); y objetivamente con el autorrefractómetro WAM-5500 (WAM). Para evaluar la precisión (variabilidad intra e inter-observador) de cada herramienta refractiva, de forma independiente, se midieron 26 ojos en cuatro ocasiones. Resultados: Con respecto a la concordancia, la diferencia media (±DE) para el equivalente esférico (M) entre el nuevo método subjetivo experimental (Subj.E) y la refracción subjetiva clásica (Subj.C) fue de −0,034 D (±0,454 D). El 95% correspondiente a los Límites de la Concordancia (LoA) fue de (−0,856 D, 0,924 D). En relación a la precisión, la diferencia media intra observador para el componente M fue de 0,034 ± 0,195 D para Subj.C, 0,015 ± 0,177 D para WAM y 0,072 ± 0,197 D para Subj.E. La variabilidad inter observador reflejó peores valores de precisión, aunque fueron clínicamente válidos (inferiores a 0,25 D) en todos los instrumentos. Conclusiones: El equivalente esférico obtenido con el nuevo sistema experimental fue preciso y guardó consonancia con la rutina subjetiva clásica. El algoritmo introducido en este nuevo sistema, y su configuración óptica, han demostrado ser un avance válido para la corrección del error esférico de modo semi-automático (AU)

Spherical subjective refraction with a novel 3D virtual reality based system.

PURPOSE: To conduct a clinical validation of a virtual reality-based experimental system that is able to assess the spherical subjective refraction simplifying the methodology of ocular refraction. METHODS: For the agreement assessment, spherical refraction measurements were obtained from 104 eyes of 52 subjects using three different methods: subjectively with the experimental prototype (Subj.E) and the classical subjective refraction (Subj.C); and objectively with the WAM-5500 autorefractor (WAM). To evaluate precision (intra- and inter-observer variability) of each refractive tool independently, 26 eyes were measured in four occasions. RESULTS: With regard to agreement, the mean difference (±SD) for the spherical equivalent (M) between the new experimental subjective method (Subj.E) and the classical subjective refraction (Subj.C) was -0.034D (±0.454D). The corresponding 95% Limits of Agreement (LoA) were (-0.856D, 0.924D). In relation to precision, intra-observer mean difference for the M component was 0.034±0.195D for the Subj.C, 0.015±0.177D for the WAM and 0.072±0.197D for the Subj.E. Inter-observer variability showed worse precision values, although still clinically valid (below 0.25D) in all instruments. CONCLUSIONS: The spherical equivalent obtained with the new experimental system was precise and in good agreement with the classical subjective routine. The algorithm implemented in this new system and its optical configuration has been shown to be a first valid step for spherical error correction in a semiautomated way.

Does the Badal optometer stimulate accommodation accurately?

PURPOSE: To study whether the accommodation response to Badal optometer is equivalent to the response for real space targets. METHODS: Accommodative responses were measured for 28 young eyes with the WAM-5500 autorefractometer in eight configurations for 0.17 D, 2.0 D and 5.0 D accommodation stimuli. Parameters that might contribute to differences in response were systematically isolated: stimulation method (real space vs Badal targets), field of view, instrument's cover proximity, the looming effect, and the peripheral interposition of objects in depth. RESULTS: Mean accommodative response differences between a natural view configuration and a configuration with a Badal Optometer were 0.50 ± 0.43 D and 0.58 ± 0.53 D for 2.0 D and 5.0 D stimulation, respectively (p < 0.001), with accommodation lags for the latter condition. Of the isolated parameters that might contribute to these differences, varying the interposition of objects in depth affected accommodation response more markedly. CONCLUSIONS: It is likely that Badal optometers affect accommodation through a combination of some or all of the studied parameters. We conclude that accommodation response to closed-view Badal optometers is not equivalent to real space target response.

Comparison of the Adaptive Optics Vision Analyzer and the KR-1 W for measuring ocular wave aberrations.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to assess the agreement in the measurement of ocular aberrations between a new Adaptive Optics Vision Analyzer (AOVA, Voptica, Murcia, Spain) and a commercial aberrometer (KR-1 W, Topcon, Tokyo, Japan), both based on the Hartmann-Shack technique. METHODS: One experienced examiner measured 29 healthy right eyes nine consecutive times with the two instruments. The individual Zernike coefficients and the root mean square (RMS) of each order from the second to the fifth order, the higher-order RMS (RMSHOA ), the total RMS (RMSTOT ) and the values of the spherical equivalent (M) and Jackson cross-cylinder (J0 and J45 ) were compared. All aberrations were computed for a 4.0 mm pupil diameter. RESULTS: Bland and Altman analysis showed good agreement between instruments and most of the parameters showed no statistically significant differences. Although the largest mean differences were obtained for the defocus coefficient C(2,0) and the spherical equivalent (M) with a mean difference (and standard deviation) of 0.190 ± 0.099 µm and -0.150 ± 0.188 D, respectively, they were clinically acceptable and significant correlations were found between the AOVA and KR-1 W for the major refractive components such as spherical equivalent (r = 0.995, p < 0.001), J0 (r = 0.964, p < 0.001), J45 (r = 0.901, p < 0.001) and C(4,0) (r = 0.575, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results suggest good agreement between instruments. Accommodation and misalignment of the measurements may play a role in some of the statistically significant differences that were obtained, specifically for defocus C(2,0), vertical coma C(3,-1) and spherical aberration C(4,0) coefficients; however, these differences were clinically irrelevant.

Repeatability of aberrometric measurements with a new instrument for vision analysis based on adaptive optics.

PURPOSE: To evaluate intersession and intrasession repeatability of aberration data obtained with a new visual simulator based on adaptive optics, which includes a Hartmann-Shack aberrometer (Adaptive Optics Vision Analyzer; Voptica S.L., Murcia, Spain). METHODS: Thirty-one healthy right eyes were included in the study. To evaluate intrasession repeatability, three consecutive measurements without repositioning the patient or realigning the eye were obtained. Intersession repeatability was evaluated in three sessions. Aberrometric data computed from the second to the fifth order for a 4-mm pupil were used. Statistical analysis included the repeated measures analysis of variance (or the Wilcoxon signed rank test), the coefficient of repeatability, the Bland-Altman method, and the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: No significant differences in the intrasession and intersession repeatability analysis for any of the parameters (P > .05) were found, suggesting a consistent variability of the instrument over time. Similar coefficient of repeatability values were obtained in the three sessions. The Bland-Altman analysis confirmed differences close to zero and the variations were independent of the mean within and between sessions. The intersession intraclass correlation coefficient values were generally above 0.75, suggesting moderate to high repeatability. However, some exceptions were found in the intrasession analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the new instrument provides consistent and repeatable aberrometric data. It is therefore a suitable tool to perform consistent and repeatable visual simulations.