Peripheral Vision Can Influence Eye Growth and Refractive Development in Infant Monkeys

College of Optometry, University of Houston, TX 77204, USA.
Investigative Ophthalmology &amp Visual Science (Impact Factor: 3.4). 12/2005; 46(11):3965-72. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.05-0445
Source: PubMed


Given the prominence of central vision in humans, it has been assumed that visual signals from the fovea dominate emmetropization. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of peripheral vision on emmetropization.
Bilateral, peripheral form deprivation was produced in 12 infant monkeys by rearing them with diffusers that had either 4- or 8-mm apertures centered on the pupils of each eye, to allow 24 degrees or 37 degrees of unrestricted central vision, respectively. At the end of the lens-rearing period, an argon laser was used to ablate the fovea in one eye of each of seven monkeys. Subsequently, all the animals were allowed unrestricted vision. Refractive error and axial dimensions were measured along the pupillary axis by retinoscopy and A-scan ultrasonography, respectively. Control data were obtained from 21 normal monkeys and 3 infants reared with binocular plano lenses.
Nine of the 12 treated monkeys had refractive errors that fell outside the 10th- and 90th-percentile limits for the age-matched control subjects, and the average refractive error for the treated animals was more variable and significantly less hyperopic/more myopic (+0.03 +/- 2.39 D vs. +2.39 +/- 0.92 D). The refractive changes were symmetric in the two eyes of a given animal and axial in nature. After lens removal, all the treated monkeys recovered from the induced refractive errors. No interocular differences in the recovery process were observed in the animals with monocular foveal lesions.
On the one hand, the peripheral retina can contribute to emmetropizing responses and to ametropias produced by an abnormal visual experience. On the other hand, unrestricted central vision is not sufficient to ensure normal refractive development, and the fovea is not essential for emmetropizing responses.

Download full-text


Available from: Chea-Su Kee, Mar 25, 2014
  • Source
    • "Improvements in accommodation performance, i.e., reduced lags, have also been reported with orthokeratology [31], lending further support to the notion that reduction or elimination of accommodative lags contributes to the myopia control effects of such treatments. The notion that the peripheral retina plays a critical role in refractive error development and thus in myopia progression also has its origins in animal model studies [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] and is driving the development of some novel designs of spectacles [7] [8] and soft contact lenses (SCLs) [9] [10] [11] for myopia control. The underlying premise is that by manipulating the defocus experience of the peripheral retina, one can either neutralise the optical defocus stimulus for excessive axial length elongation, i.e., by correcting peripheral (off-axis) hyperopia, or reverse it by imposing myopic defocus, thereby inhibiting eye growth. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: To characterise the effects on accommodation and binocular vision in young adults of 2 distance centre multifocal soft contact lenses (MFSCLs), differing in add power. Methods: Twenty-four young adult myopes (18-28 years; 20 females, 4 males) had baseline visual acuity, accommodation, near phoria, fixation disparity and stereopsis data collected with single vision (SV) SCLs. The same set of measurements was repeated immediately after subjects were fitted with each of two MFSCLs (with either +1.50 or +3.00 D add), and after 2 weeks of daily wear in each case. The order of testing was randomised and a one-week washout period was allowed between the first and second MFSCL trials. Results: Differences in distance and near acuities with MFSCLs compared to SVSCLs were small and clinically insignificant. Compared to responses with SVSCLs, MFSCLs increased accommodative lags with this change reaching statistical significance for the +1.50 D add lens. Furthermore, both MFSCLs induced significant shifts in near phorias in the exo direction. Finally, there were no significant differences in stereopsis and fixation disparity with MFSCLs compared to SVSCLs. Conclusion: Differences in acuities, accommodation accuracy and binocular posture with MFSCLs compared to SVSCLs were clinically small and mostly not significant. These results predict good tolerance of MFSCLs in young patients fitted with them for myopia control.
    Contact lens & anterior eye: the journal of the British Contact Lens Association 10/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.clae.2015.09.004 · 1.37 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "This is especially true in relation to the amount of refractive error that is related to an increased risk of retinal detachment, glaucoma, cataract, and chorioretinal degeneration as the leading causes of permanent visual impairment [2]. Studies of the emmetropization mechanism in animals have suggested that treatments that consider the peripheral retina may be much more effective than others [3]. In particular , experiments in monkeys have indicated that visual signals from the peripheral retina are essential for several aspects of regulation of vision-dependent ocular growth [4]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective. To evaluate the degree of axial elongation with soft radial refractive gradient (SRRG) contact lenses, orthokeratology (OK), and single vision (SV) spectacle lenses (control) during a period of 1 year before treatment and 2 years after treatment. Methods. This was a prospective, longitudinal, nonrandomized study. The study groups consisted of 30, 29, and 41 children, respectively. The axial length (AL) was measured during 2 years after recruitment and lens fitting. Results. The baseline refractive sphere was correlated significantly (Spearman's Rho (í µí¼Œ) correlation = 0.542; P < 0.0001) with the amount of myopia progression before baseline. After 2 years, the mean myopia progression values for the SRRG, OK, and SV groups were −0.56 ± 0.51, −0.32 ± 0.53, and −0.98 ± 0.58 diopter, respectively. The results represent reductions in myopic progression of 43% and 67% for the SRRG and OK groups, respectively, compared to the SV group. The AL increased 27% and 38% less in the SRRG and OK groups, respectively compared with the SV group at the 2-year visit (P < 0.05). Axial elongation was not significantly different between SRRG and OK (P = 0.430). Conclusion. The SRRG lens significantly decreased AL elongation compared to the SV control group. The SRRG lens was similarly effective to OK in preventing myopia progression in myopic children and adolescent.
    BioMed Research International 10/2015; 2015(2015):10. DOI:10.1155/2015/507572 · 2.71 Impact Factor
    • "The fitting of contact lenses with increased negative spherical aberration may be advantageous when aiming for a better HCVA, but the opposite occurs when trying to control myopia progression since increased negative spherical aberration leads to an increase in relative peripheral hyperopia. However, to achieve the required myopia control effect based on the Smith hypothesis [11], single vision lenses should preferably exhibit positive spherical aberration in order to bring peripheral image shell forward. As observed in the power profile measurements of the À1.00D lenses, Wagner et al. showed that the Night and Day lens was the only test lens that "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess visual performance of single vision and multifocal soft contact lenses. At baseline, forty-four myopic participants (aged 18-35 years) were fitted bilaterally with a control lens (AirOptix Aqua). At the four follow-up visits, a total of 16 study lenses (5 single vision, 11 multifocal lenses) were fitted contralaterally. After 1h of lens wear, participants rated (scale 1-10) vision clarity (distance, intermediate and near), magnitude of ghosting at distance, comfort during head movement, and overall comfort. Distance high contrast visual acuity (HCVA), central refraction and higher order aberrations, and contact lens centration were measured. For single vision lenses, vision ratings were not significantly different to the control (p>0.005). The control outperformed Acuvue Oasys, Clariti Monthly and Night and Day in HCVA (mean VA: -0.10±0.07 logMAR, p<0.005). Most refraction and higher order aberration measures were not different between lenses. The Night and Day lens showed greatest differences compared to the control, i.e., C[4, 0] was more positive (p<0.005) at distance (Δ=0.019μm) and near (Δ=0.028μm). For multifocal lenses, the majority of vision ratings (84%) were better with the control (p<0.005). HCVA was better with the control (p<0.005). Proclear Multifocal lenses showed greatest differences for M, C[3, -1] and C[4, 0] at distance and near, and were inferiorly de-centered (p<0.005). Design differences between single vision lenses had a small impact on visual performance. Lenses featuring multifocality decreased visual performance, in particular when power variations across the optic zone were large and/or the lens was significantly de-centered. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
    Contact lens & anterior eye: the journal of the British Contact Lens Association 07/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.clae.2015.07.005 · 1.37 Impact Factor
Show more