Article

Monocular amblyopia and higher order aberrations

Contact Lens and Visual Optics Laboratory, School of Optometry, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Vision research (Impact Factor: 2.29). 07/2012; 66:39-48. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2012.06.016
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study compared the corneal and total higher order aberrations between the fellow eyes in monocular amblyopia. Nineteen amblyopic subjects (8 refractive and 11 strabismic) (mean age 30 ± 11 years) were recruited. A range of biometric and optical measurements were collected from the amblyopic and non-amblyopic eye including; axial length, corneal topography and total higher order aberrations. For a sub-group of eleven non-presbyopic subjects (6 refractive and 5 strabismic amblyopes, mean age 29 ± 10 years) total higher order aberrations were also measured during accommodation (2.5D stimuli). Amblyopic eyes were significantly shorter and more hyperopic compared to non-amblyopic eyes and the interocular difference in axial length correlated with both the magnitude of anisometropia and amblyopia (both p<0.01). Significant differences in higher order aberrations were observed between fellow eyes, which varied with the type of amblyopia. Refractive amblyopes displayed higher levels of 4th order corneal aberrations C(4,0)(spherical aberration), C(4,2)(secondary astigmatism 90°) and C(4,-2)(secondary astigmatism along 45°) in the amblyopic eye compared to the non-amblyopic eye. Strabismic amblyopes exhibited significantly higher levels of C(3,3)(trefoil) in the amblyopic eye for both corneal and total higher order aberrations. During accommodation, the amblyopic eye displayed a significantly greater lag of accommodation compared to the non-amblyopic eye, while the changes in higher order aberrations were similar in magnitude between fellow eyes. Asymmetric visual experience during development appears to be associated with asymmetries in higher order aberrations, in some cases proportional to the magnitude of anisometropia and dependent upon the amblyogenic factor.

1 Bookmark
 · 
146 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anisometropia represents a unique example of ocular development, where the two eyes of an individual, with an identical genetic background and seemingly subject to identical environmental influences, can grow asymmetrically to produce significantly different refractive errors. This review provides an overview of the research examining myopic anisometropia, the ocular characteristics underlying the condition and the potential aetiological factors involved. Various mechanical factors are discussed, including corneal structure, intraocular pressure and forces generated during near work that may contribute to development of anisomyopia. Potential visually guided mechanisms of unequal ocular growth are also explored, including the influence of astigmatism, accommodation, higher-order aberrations and the choroidal response to altered visual experience. The association between binocular vision, ocular dominance and asymmetric refraction is also considered, along with a review of the genetic contribution to the aetiology of myopic anisometropia. Despite a significant amount of research into the biomechanical, structural and optical characteristics of anisometropic eyes, there is still no unifying theory, which adequately explains how two eyes within the same visual system grow to different endpoints
    Clinical and Experimental Optometry 07/2014; 97(4):291-307. DOI:10.1111/cxo.12171 · 1.26 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The main goal of this study was to investigate the effect of accommodation on eye's optical quality. Wavefront aberrations data of 35 young emmetropic eyes were measured with the L80 Wave+: (1) ocular aberrations were measured with the wavefront sensor, while the subjects fixated at far and near (40 cm), (2) corneal wavefront aberrations were computed from the Placido disk system's data for distance vision conditions and (3) the internal wavefront component of the eye were determined as the difference between ocular and corneal wavefront aberrations. Ocular wavefront aberrations pattern changed with accommodation, particularly due to changes in the primary spherical aberrations towards negative values. Furthermore, the optical quality of the eye and the retinal image quality changes during near vision.
    Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering 11/2013; DOI:10.1117/12.2028240 · 0.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: The interaction between higher order ocular aberrations (HOA) and refractive error is not yet fully understood. This study investigated HOA in relation to refractive error and ocular biometric parameters in a population with a high prevalence of ametropia. Methods: HOA were investigated in two cohorts of Caucasian children aged 9-10 and 15-16 years (n=313). HOA were measured for a 5mm pupil with the IRX3 aberrometer (Imagine Eyes, France). Cycloplegic refractive error and ocular biometry measures, including axial length and corneal curvature, were also assessed with the Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 auto-refractor and Zeiss IOLMaster respectively. Participants were divided into refractive groups for analysis of HOA. Results: The magnitude of total HOA was higher in this population at 0.27μm (Inter-quartile range (IQR) 0.22-0.32μm) than other HOA reported in the literature. The profile of HOA was not significantly different across the two age cohorts or across refractive groups; nor did spherical aberration differ significantly with age ( =0.07μm for both cohorts). Multivariate linear regression analysis demonstrated spherical aberration was significantly related to axial length (but not refractive grouping), with longer eyes having less positive values of fourth order and RMS spherical aberration. Conclusions: This study found no significant difference in HOA across refractive groups. The current study also highlights the importance of knowledge of axial length when analysing HOA.
    Investigative Ophthalmology &amp Visual Science 07/2014; 55(8). DOI:10.1167/iovs.13-13533 · 3.66 Impact Factor