4.3 Article

Unbiased estimation of refractive state of aberrated eyes

Journal

VISION RESEARCH
Volume 51, Issue 17, Pages 1932-1940

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.07.006

Keywords

Objective refraction; Refractive state; Metrics; Subjective refraction; Wavefront

Funding

  1. US National Institutes of Health [R01-EY05109, P30EY019008]
  2. Essilor International

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We seek unbiased methods for estimating the target vergence required to maximize visual acuity based on wavefront aberration measurements. Experiments were designed to minimize the impact of confounding factors that have hampered previous research. Objective wavefront refractions and subjective acuity refractions were obtained for the same monochromatic wavelength. Accommodation and pupil fluctuations were eliminated by cycloplegia. Unbiased subjective refractions that maximize visual acuity for high contrast letters were performed with a computer controlled forced choice staircase procedure, using 0.125 diopter steps of defocus. All experiments were performed for two pupil diameters (3 mm and 6 mm). As reported in the literature, subjective refractive error does not change appreciably when the pupil dilates. For 3 mm pupils most metrics yielded objective refractions that were about 0.1 D more hyperopic than subjective acuity refractions. When pupil diameter increased to 6 mm, this bias changed in the myopic direction and the variability between metrics also increased. These inaccuracies were small compared to the precision of the measurements, which implies that most metrics provided unbiased estimates of refractive state for medium and large pupils. Thus a variety of image quality metrics may be used to determine ocular refractive state for monochromatic (635 nm) light, thereby achieving accurate results without the need for empirical correction factors. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available