Primate eyes display considerable oblique off-axis astigmatism which could provide information on the sign of defocus that is needed for emmetropization. The pattern of peripheral astigmatism is not known in the chicken eye, a common model of myopia. Peripheral astigmatism was mapped out over the horizontal visual field in three chickens, 43 days old, and in three near emmetropic human subjects, average age 34.7years, using infrared photoretinoscopy. There were no differences in astigmatism between humans and chickens in the central visual field (chicks -0.35D, humans -0.65D, n.s.) but large differences in the periphery (i.e. astigmatism at 40° in the temporal visual field: humans -4.21D, chicks -0.63D, p<0.001, unpaired t-test). The lack of peripheral astigmatism in chicks was not due to differences in corneal shape. Perhaps related to their superior peripheral optics, we found that chickens had excellent visual performance also in the far periphery. Using an automated optokinetic nystagmus paradigm, no difference was observed in spatial visual performance with vision restricted to either the central 67° of the visual field or to the periphery beyond 67°. Accommodation was elicited by stimuli presented far out in the visual field. Transscleral images of single infrared LEDs showed no sign of peripheral astigmatism. The chick may be the first terrestrial vertebrate described to lack oblique astigmatism. Since corneal shape cannot account for the difference in astigmatism in humans and chicks, it must trace back to the design of the crystalline lens. The lack of peripheral astigmatism in chicks also excludes a role in emmetropization.

The chicken eye was previously found to have little off-axis astigmatism which is not explained by its special corneal shape but rather by the optical properties of the crystalline lens. To learn more about lens design, we studied off-axis astigmatism in the chicken lens in situ and compared it to a glass lens of similar power but with homogenous refractive index. After euthanasia, enucleated eye balls were cut in the equatorial plane right behind the scleral ossicles. The anterior segment was placed in a water-filled chamber. Several thin laser beams were projected in two perpendicular meridians through the lens under various eccentricities and the focal lengths were determined. Off-axis astigmatism across the horizontal visual field was determined as the differences in power in the two meridians. The same procedure was used for the glass lens. On-axis, the chicken crystalline lens had slightly more power in the vertical than in the horizontal meridian (-2.8±0.7D (SEM)). Astigmatism flipped sign and increased with eccentricity to reach +6.1±2.1D (SEM) at 33.5deg off-axis, as expected from off-axis astigmatism. Even though this value appears high, it was still 2.5 times lower than in the glass lens. A ZEMAX model of a lens with a homogeneous index and with surface profiles taken of the natural chicken lens revealed even higher levels of off-axis astigmatism. Obviously, the natural chicken lens displays much less off-axis astigmatism than a glass lens with similar power. Since its shape does not explain the low off-axis astigmatism, it must be due to a refined internal refractive index structure.

Vertical differences in retinal image height were compensated by vertical fusional eye movements but some subjects responded poorly to a vertical prism in both experiments; fusional eye movements were generally too small to realign both foveae with the fixation target; and the prism adaptation in the Maddox test was fully explained by the changes in vertical eye position, suggesting that no further adaptational mechanism may be involved.