We determined the accuracy and precision of 33 objective methods for predicting the results of conventional, sphero-cylindrical refraction from wavefront aberrations in a large population of 200 eyes. Accuracy for predicting defocus (as specified by the population mean error of prediction) varied from -0.50 D to +0.25 D across methods. Precision of these estimates (as specified by 95% limits of agreement) ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 D. All methods except one accurately predicted astigmatism to within +/-1/8D. Precision of astigmatism predictions was typically better than precision for predicting defocus and many methods were better than 0.5D. Paraxial curvature matching of the wavefront aberration map was the most accurate method for determining the spherical equivalent error whereas least-squares fitting of the wavefront was one of the least accurate methods. We argue that this result was obtained because curvature matching is a biased method that successfully predicts the biased endpoint stipulated by conventional refractions. Five methods emerged as reasonably accurate and among the most precise. Three of these were based on pupil plane metrics and two were based on image plane metrics. We argue that the accuracy of all methods might be improved by correcting for the systematic bias reported in this study. However, caution is advised because some tasks, including conventional refraction of defocus, require a biased metric whereas other tasks, such as refraction of astigmatism, are unbiased. We conclude that objective methods of refraction based on wavefront aberration maps can accurately predict the results of subjective refraction and may be more precise. If objective refractions are more precise than subjective refractions, then wavefront methods may become the new gold standard for specifying conventional and/or optimal corrections of refractive errors.
A Shack-Hartmann aberrometer was used to measure the monochromatic aberration structure along the primary line of sight of 200 cyclopleged, normal, healthy eyes from 100 individuals. Sphero-cylindrical refractive errors were corrected with ophthalmic spectacle lenses based on the results of a subjective refraction performed immediately prior to experimentation. Zernike expansions of the experimental wave-front aberration functions were used to determine aberration coefficients for a series of pupil diameters. The residual Zernike coefficients for defocus were not zero but varied systematically with pupil diameter and with the Zernike coefficient for spherical aberration in a way that maximizes visual acuity. We infer from these results that subjective best focus occurs when the area of the central, aberration-free region of the pupil is maximized. We found that the population averages of Zernike coefficients were nearly zero for all of the higher-order modes except spherical aberration. This result indicates that a hypothetical average eye representing the central tendency of the population is nearly free of aberrations, suggesting the possible influence of an emmetropization process or evolutionary pressure. However, for any individual eye the aberration coefficients were rarely zero for any Zernike mode. To first approximation, wave-front error fell exponentially with Zernike order and increased linearly with pupil area. On average, the total wave-front variance produced by higher-order aberrations was less than the wave-front variance of residual defocus and astigmatism. For example, the average amount of higher-order aberrations present for a 7.5-mm pupil was equivalent to the wave-front error produced by less than 1/4 diopter (D) of defocus. The largest pupil for which an eye may be considered diffraction-limited was 1.22 mm on average. Correlation of aberrations from the left and right eyes indicated the presence of significant bilateral symmetry. No evidence was found of a universal anatomical feature responsible for third-order optical aberrations. Using the Marechal criterion, we conclude that correction of the 12 largest principal components, or 14 largest Zernike modes, would be required to achieve diffraction-limited performance on average for a 6-mm pupil. Different methods of computing population averages provided upper and lower limits to the mean optical transfer function and mean point-spread function for our population of eyes.
Power vector analysis also revealed a reduction in the astigmatic component of these refractive errors. Paired comparisons revealed that the change in manifest astigmatism due to surgery was well correlated with the change in keratometric astigmatism. Power vectors aid the visualization of complex changes in refractive error by tracing a trajectory in a uniform dioptric space. The Cartesian components of a power vector are mutually independent, which simplifies mathematical and statistical analysis of refractive errors. Power vectors also provide a natural link to a more comprehensive optical description of ocular refractive imperfections in terms of wavefront aberration functions and their description by Zernike polynomials.
Wavefront-guided refractive surgery and custom optical corrections have reduced the residual root mean squared (RMS) wavefront error in the eye to relatively low levels (typically on the order of 0.25 microm or less over a 6-mm pupil, a dioptric equivalent of 0.19 D). It has been shown that experimental variation of the distribution of 0.25 microm of wavefront error across the pupil can cause variation in visual acuity of two lines on a standard logMAR acuity chart. This result demonstrates the need for single-value metrics other than RMS wavefront error to quantify the effects of low levels of aberration on acuity. In this work, we present the correlation of 31 single-value metrics of optical quality to high-contrast visual acuity for 34 conditions where the RMS wavefront error was equal to 0.25 microm over a 6-mm pupil. The best metric, called the visual Strehl ratio, accounts for 81% of the variance in high-contrast logMAR acuity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.