Dual‐focus contact lenses for myopia control modify central retinal electrophysiology in humans.
Saved in:
| Title: | Dual‐focus contact lenses for myopia control modify central retinal electrophysiology in humans. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Turnbull, Philip R. K. (AUTHOR), Goodman, Lucy K. (AUTHOR), Phillips, John R. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics. Sep2023, Vol. 43 Issue 5, p1100-1109. 10p. 1 Diagram, 2 Charts, 3 Graphs. |
| Subjects: | Contact lenses, Myopia, Electrophysiology, Focal planes, Retinal imaging |
| Abstract: | Introduction: Dual‐focus contact lenses create two focal planes, one providing a clear retinal image while the other imposes myopic defocus on the retina to slow myopia progression. This study used global‐flash multifocal electroretinogram (gmfERG) response amplitudes to compare central versus peripheral retinal responses under dual‐focus conditions and to assess the optimal degree of myopic defocus compared with a single‐vision control lens. Methods: Twenty participants each underwent three gmfERG trials, wearing a spectacle correction over dual‐focus contact lenses with plano central power and peripheral secondary focal powers of either +2.00D, +4.00D or a plano single‐vision lens. We compared amplitudes and latencies of the gmfERG direct and induced components (DC and IC) within participants, between the three different contact lens powers and at different retinal eccentricities (gmfERG ring). Results: We observed significant differences in the gmfERG responses between the single‐vision and dual‐focus contact lenses. Overall, DC amplitudes peaked between zero and +2.00D secondary power, while IC amplitudes were maximal between +2.00D and +4.00D. Compared with the single‐vision control, the greatest increase in DC and IC amplitudes while wearing dual‐focus lenses occurred within the central 10° of the retina. There was no interaction effect between gmfERG ring (eccentricity) and secondary power, and no difference in the latency of the gmfERG responses between different powers. Conclusion: We found that dual‐focus contact lenses with a +2.00D secondary power are close to that expected to induce the greatest increase in gmfERG responses relative to a single‐vision lens. Dual‐focus lenses produced the highest DC and IC response amplitudes relative to a single‐vision lens in the central 10° of the retina. This suggests that dual‐focus contact lenses slow myopia progression by modifying central rather than peripheral retinal activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Introduction: Dual‐focus contact lenses create two focal planes, one providing a clear retinal image while the other imposes myopic defocus on the retina to slow myopia progression. This study used global‐flash multifocal electroretinogram (gmfERG) response amplitudes to compare central versus peripheral retinal responses under dual‐focus conditions and to assess the optimal degree of myopic defocus compared with a single‐vision control lens. Methods: Twenty participants each underwent three gmfERG trials, wearing a spectacle correction over dual‐focus contact lenses with plano central power and peripheral secondary focal powers of either +2.00D, +4.00D or a plano single‐vision lens. We compared amplitudes and latencies of the gmfERG direct and induced components (DC and IC) within participants, between the three different contact lens powers and at different retinal eccentricities (gmfERG ring). Results: We observed significant differences in the gmfERG responses between the single‐vision and dual‐focus contact lenses. Overall, DC amplitudes peaked between zero and +2.00D secondary power, while IC amplitudes were maximal between +2.00D and +4.00D. Compared with the single‐vision control, the greatest increase in DC and IC amplitudes while wearing dual‐focus lenses occurred within the central 10° of the retina. There was no interaction effect between gmfERG ring (eccentricity) and secondary power, and no difference in the latency of the gmfERG responses between different powers. Conclusion: We found that dual‐focus contact lenses with a +2.00D secondary power are close to that expected to induce the greatest increase in gmfERG responses relative to a single‐vision lens. Dual‐focus lenses produced the highest DC and IC response amplitudes relative to a single‐vision lens in the central 10° of the retina. This suggests that dual‐focus contact lenses slow myopia progression by modifying central rather than peripheral retinal activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 02755408 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/opo.13163 |
