The chick eye is able to change its refractive state by as much as 7 D by pushing the retina forward or pulling it back; this is effected by changes in the thickness of the choroid, the vascular tissue behind the retina and pigment epithelium. Chick eyes first made myopic by wearing diffusers and then permitted unrestricted vision developed choroids several times thicker than normal within days, thereby speeding recovery from deprivation myopia. Choroidal expansion does not occur when visual cues are reduced by dim illumination during the period of unrestricted vision. Furthermore, in chick eyes presented with myopic or hyperopic defocus by means of spectacle lenses, the choroid expands or thins, respectively, in compensation for the specific defocus imposed. Consequently, when the lenses are removed, the eye finds its refractive error suddenly of opposite sign, and the choroidal thickness again compensates by changing in the opposite direction. If a local region of the eye is made myopic by a partial diffuser and then given unrestricted vision, the choroid expands only in the myopic region. Although the mechanism of choroidal expansion is unknown, it might involve either a increased routing of aqueous humor into the uveoscleral outflow or osmotically generated water movement into the choroid. The latter is compatible with the increased choroidal proteoglycan synthesis either when eyes wear positive lenses or after diffuser removal.

It is known that when hyperopic or myopic defocus is imposed on chick eyes by spectacle lenses, they rapidly compensate, becoming myopic or hyperopic respectively, by altering the depth of their vitreous chamber. Changes in two components--ocular length and choroidal thickness--underlie this rapid compensation. With monocular lens treatment, hyperopic defocus imposed by negative lenses resulted in substantially increased ocular elongation and a slight thinning of the choroid, both changes resulting in myopia; myopic defocus imposed by positive lenses resulted a dramatic increase in choroidal thickness, which pushed the retina forward toward the image plane, and a slight decrease in ocular elongation, both changes resulting in hyperopia. The refractive error after 5 days of lens wear correlated well with vitreous chamber depth, which reflected the changes in both choroidal thickness and ocular length. The degree of compensation for lenses was not affected by whether the fellow eye was covered or open. Both form-deprivation myopia and lens-induced myopia declined with age in parallel, but wearing a -15 D lens produced more myopia than did form deprivation. The spectacle lenses affected the refractive error not only of the lens-wearing eye, but also, to a much lesser degree, of the untreated fellow eye. At lens removal refractive errors were opposite in sign to the lense worn, and the subsequent changes in choroidal thickness and ocular length were also opposite to those that occurred when the lenses were in place. In this situation as well, effects of the spectacle lenses on the fellow eyes were observed. Eyes with no functional afferent connection to the brain because of either prior optic nerve section or intraocular tetrodotoxin injections showed compensatory changes to imposed defocus, but these were limited to compensation for imposed myopic defocus, at least for the eyes with optic nerve section. In addition, optic nerve section, but not tetrodotoxin treatment, moved the set-point of the visual compensatory mechanism toward hyperopia. Optic nerve section prevents myopia in response to negative lenses but not to diffusers, suggesting that compensation for hyperopia requires the central nervous system.

Myopia has been predicted to affect approximately 50% of the world's population based on trending myopia prevalence figures. Critical to minimizing the associated adverse visual consequences of complicating ocular pathologies are interventions to prevent or delay the onset of myopia, slow its progression, and to address the problem of mechanical instability of highly myopic eyes. Although treatment approaches are growing in number, evidence of treatment efficacy is variable. This article reviews research behind such interventions under four categories: optical, pharmacological, environmental (behavioral), and surgical. In summarizing the evidence of efficacy, results from randomized controlled trials have been given most weight, although such data are very limited for some treatments. The overall conclusion of this review is that there are multiple avenues for intervention worthy of exploration in all categories, although in the case of optical, pharmacological, and behavioral interventions for preventing or slowing progression of myopia, treatment efficacy at an individual level appears quite variable, with no one treatment being 100% effective in all patients. Further research is critical to understanding the factors underlying such variability and underlying mechanisms, to guide recommendations for combined treatments. There is also room for research into novel treatment options.

No abstract