Aniseikonia is a difference in the perceived size or shape of images between eyes, and can arise from a variety of physiological, neurological, retinal, and optical causes. Aniseikonia is associated with anisometropia, as both anisometropia itself and the optical correction for anisometropia can cause aniseikonia. Image size differences above one to three per cent can be clinically symptomatic. Common symptoms include asthenopia, headache and diplopia in vertical gaze. Size differences of three and more impair binocular visual functions such as binocular summation and stereopsis. Above five per cent of aniseikonia, binocular inhibition or suppression tend to occur to prevent diplopia and confusion. Aniseikonia can be measured using a range of techniques and can be corrected or reduced by prescribing contact lenses or specially designed spectacle lenses. Subjective testing of aniseikonia is the only way to accurately measure the overall perceived amount of aniseikonia. However, currently it is not routinely assessed in most clinical settings. At least two-thirds of patients with amblyopia have anisometropia, thus we may expect aniseikonia to be common in patients with anisometropic amblyopia. However, aniseikonia may not be experienced by the patient under normal binocular viewing conditions if the image from the amblyopic eye is of poor quality or is too strongly suppressed for image size differences to be recognised. This lack of binocular simultaneous perception in amblyopia may also prevent the measurement of aniseikonia, as most common techniques require direct comparisons of images seen by each eye. Current guidelines for the treatment of amblyopia advocate full correction of anisometropia to equalise image clarity, but do not address aniseikonia. Significant image size differences between eyes may lead to suppression and abnormal binocular adaptations. It is possible that correcting anisometropia and aniseikonia simultaneously, particularly at the initial diagnosis of anisometropia, would reduce the need to develop suppression and improve treatment outcomes for anisometropic amblyopia.

PurposeChildren may be tested with a variety of visual acuity (VA) charts during their ophthalmic care and differences between charts can complicate the interpretation of VA measurements. This study compared VA measurements across four pediatric charts with Sloan letters and identified chart design features that contributed to inter-chart differences in VA.MethodsVA was determined for right eyes of 25 adults and 17 children (4–9 years of age) using Crowded Kay Pictures, Crowded linear Lea Symbols, Crowded Keeler logMAR, Crowded HOTV and Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts in focused and defocused (+1.00 DS optical blur) conditions. In a separate group of 25 adults, we compared the VA from individual Kay Picture optotypes with uncrowded Landolt C VA measurements.ResultsCrowded Kay Pictures generated significantly better VA measurements than all other charts in both adults and children (p < 0.001; 0.15 to 0.30 logMAR). No significant differences were found between other charts in adult participants; children achieved significantly poorer VA measurements on the ETDRS chart compared with pediatric acuity tests. All Kay Pictures optotypes produced better VA (p < 0.001), varying from -0.38 ± 0.13 logMAR (apple) to -0.57 ± 0.10 logMAR (duck), than the reference Landolt C task (mean VA -0.19 ± 0.08 logMAR).ConclusionKay Pictures over-estimated VA in all participants. Variability between Kay Pictures optotypes suggests that shape cues aid in optotype determination. Other pediatric charts offer more comparable VA measures and should be used for children likely to progress to letter charts.

In chicks, an increase in daily light exposure continuously during the day is more effective at inhibiting myopia than adding an equivalent dose within a 2 h period of bright light. A weak time-of-day effect also appears to be present in the response to bright light exposure. Our results suggest that future light-based myopia therapies in humans may be more effective if light levels are increased over the whole day, rather than through short periods of bright light exposure.

The distribution of refractive error within this family of Labrador Retrievers had a significant genetic component, but was also influenced by other factors (litter size, and undefined residual/environmental effects). The dog represents a unique model for the study of naturally occurring, heritable, high-prevalence, low-degree myopia.

No abstract