The effect of multifocal contact lenses on the dynamic accommodation step response.
Saved in:
| Title: | The effect of multifocal contact lenses on the dynamic accommodation step response. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Mahmood, Mubeen (AUTHOR), Day, Mhairi (AUTHOR), Seidel, Dirk (AUTHOR), Cameron, Lorraine A. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics. Mar2024, Vol. 44 Issue 2, p321-333. 13p. |
| Abstract: | Purpose: To measure the dynamic accommodation response (AR) to step stimuli with and without multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs), in emmetropes and myopes. Methods: Twenty‐two adult subjects viewed alternating distance (0.25D) and near (3D) Maltese crosses placed in free space, through two contact lens types: single vision (SVCL) or centre‐distance multifocal (MFCL; +2.50D add). The AR level was measured along with near to far (N–F) and far to near (F–N) step response characteristics: percentage of correct responses, magnitude, latency, peak velocity and duration of step response. Results: There was no difference between N–F and F–N responses, or between refractive groups in any aspect of the accommodation step response dynamics. The percentage of correct responses was unaffected by contact lens type. Through MFCLs, subjects demonstrated smaller magnitude, longer latency, shorter duration and slower peak velocity steps than through SVCLs. When viewing the near target, the AR through MFCLs was significantly lower than through SVCLs. When viewing the distance target with the MFCL, the focal points from rays travelling through the distance and near zones were approximately 0.004D behind and 2.50D in front of the retina, respectively. When viewing the near target, the respective values were approximately 1.89D behind and 0.61D in front of the retina. Conclusion: The defocus error required for accommodation control appears not to be solely derived from the distance zone of the MFCL. This results in reduced performance in response to abruptly changing vergence stimuli; however, these errors were small and unlikely to impact everyday visual tasks. There was a decrease in ocular accommodation during near tasks, which has previously been correlated with a reduced myopic treatment response through these lenses. With MFCLs, the estimated dioptric myopic defocus was the largest when viewing a distant stimulus, supporting the hypothesis that the outdoors provides a beneficial visual environment to reduce myopia progression. [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: | Purpose: To measure the dynamic accommodation response (AR) to step stimuli with and without multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs), in emmetropes and myopes. Methods: Twenty‐two adult subjects viewed alternating distance (0.25D) and near (3D) Maltese crosses placed in free space, through two contact lens types: single vision (SVCL) or centre‐distance multifocal (MFCL; +2.50D add). The AR level was measured along with near to far (N–F) and far to near (F–N) step response characteristics: percentage of correct responses, magnitude, latency, peak velocity and duration of step response. Results: There was no difference between N–F and F–N responses, or between refractive groups in any aspect of the accommodation step response dynamics. The percentage of correct responses was unaffected by contact lens type. Through MFCLs, subjects demonstrated smaller magnitude, longer latency, shorter duration and slower peak velocity steps than through SVCLs. When viewing the near target, the AR through MFCLs was significantly lower than through SVCLs. When viewing the distance target with the MFCL, the focal points from rays travelling through the distance and near zones were approximately 0.004D behind and 2.50D in front of the retina, respectively. When viewing the near target, the respective values were approximately 1.89D behind and 0.61D in front of the retina. Conclusion: The defocus error required for accommodation control appears not to be solely derived from the distance zone of the MFCL. This results in reduced performance in response to abruptly changing vergence stimuli; however, these errors were small and unlikely to impact everyday visual tasks. There was a decrease in ocular accommodation during near tasks, which has previously been correlated with a reduced myopic treatment response through these lenses. With MFCLs, the estimated dioptric myopic defocus was the largest when viewing a distant stimulus, supporting the hypothesis that the outdoors provides a beneficial visual environment to reduce myopia progression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 02755408 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/opo.13275 |
