Effects of foveal ablation on emmetropization and form-deprivation myopia.
ABSTRACT Because of the prominence of central vision in primates, it has generally been assumed that signals from the fovea dominate refractive development. To test this assumption, the authors determined whether an intact fovea was essential for either normal emmetropization or the vision-induced myopic errors produced by form deprivation.
In 13 rhesus monkeys at 3 weeks of age, the fovea and most of the perifovea in one eye were ablated by laser photocoagulation. Five of these animals were subsequently allowed unrestricted vision. For the other eight monkeys with foveal ablations, a diffuser lens was secured in front of the treated eyes to produce form deprivation. Refractive development was assessed along the pupillary axis by retinoscopy, keratometry, and A-scan ultrasonography. Control data were obtained from 21 normal monkeys and three infants reared with plano lenses in front of both eyes.
Foveal ablations had no apparent effect on emmetropization. Refractive errors for both eyes of the treated infants allowed unrestricted vision were within the control range throughout the observation period, and there were no systematic interocular differences in refractive error or axial length. In addition, foveal ablation did not prevent form deprivation myopia; six of the eight infants that experienced monocular form deprivation developed myopic axial anisometropias outside the control range.
Visual signals from the fovea are not essential for normal refractive development or the vision-induced alterations in ocular growth produced by form deprivation. Conversely, the peripheral retina, in isolation, can regulate emmetropizing responses and produce anomalous refractive errors in response to abnormal visual experience. These results indicate that peripheral vision should be considered when assessing the effects of visual experience on refractive development.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We provide an account of the relationships between eye shape, retinal shape and peripheral refraction. We discuss how eye and retinal shapes may be described as conicoids, and we describe an axis and section reference system for determining shapes. Explanations are given of how patterns of retinal expansion during the development of myopia may contribute to changing patterns of peripheral refraction, and how pre-existing retinal shape might contribute to the development of myopia. Direct and indirect techniques for determining eye and retinal shape are described, and results are discussed. There is reasonable consistency in the literature of eye length increasing at a greater rate than height and width as the degree of myopia increases, so that eyes may be described as changing from oblate/spherical shapes to prolate shapes. However, one study indicates that the retina itself, while showing the same trend, remains oblate in shape for most eyes (discounting high myopia). Eye shape and retinal shape are not the same and merely describing an eye shape as being prolate or oblate is insufficient without some understanding of the parameters contributing to this; in myopia a prolate eye shape is likely to involve both a steepening retina near the posterior pole combined with a flattening (or a reduction in steepening compared with an emmetrope) away from the pole. In the recent literature, eye and/or retinal shape have often been inferred from peripheral refraction, and, to a lesser extent, vice versa. Because both the eye's optics and the retinal shape contribute to the peripheral refraction, and there is large variation in the latter, this inference should be made cautiously. Recently retinal shape has been measured independent of optical methods using magnetic resonance imaging. For further work on retinal shape, determining the validity of cheaper alternatives to magnetic resonance techniques is required.Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 04/2012; 32(3):184-99. · 1.58 Impact Factor