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.

For low levels of aberration, the RMS wavefront error is not a good predictor of visual acuity. Clinically, it is important to define how aberrations interact to optimize visual performance. New metrics of optical/neural performance that correlate better with clinical measures of visual performance need to be adopted or developed, as well as new clinically viable measures of visual performance that are sensitive to subtle changes in optical performance.

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.

No abstract

Wave aberrations were measured with a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor (SHWS) in the right eye of a large young adult population when accommodative demands of 0, 3, and 6 D were presented to the tested eye through a Badal system. Three SHWS images were recorded at each accommodative demand and wave aberrations were computed over a 5-mm pupil (through 6th order Zernike polynomials). The accommodative response was calculated from the Zernike defocus over the central 3-mm diameter zone. Among all individual Zernike terms, spherical aberration showed the greatest change with accommodation. The change of spherical aberration was always negative, and was proportional to the change in accommodative response. Coma and astigmatism also changed with accommodation, but the direction of the change was variable. Despite the large inter-subject variability, the population average of the root mean square for all aberrations (excluding defocus) remained constant for accommodative levels up to 3.0 D. Even though aberrations change with accommodation, the magnitude of the aberration change remains less than the magnitude of the uncorrected aberrations, even at high accommodative levels. Therefore, a typical eye will benefit over the entire accommodative range (0-6 D) if aberrations are corrected for distance viewing.