2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijleo.2006.03.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Geometrical approximations for accurate evaluation of refraction in the human cornea

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

3
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In particular, the typical keratometric index is too high and results in an overestimation of the corneal optical power (Dubbelman et al. , 2006; Espinosa et al. , 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In particular, the typical keratometric index is too high and results in an overestimation of the corneal optical power (Dubbelman et al. , 2006; Espinosa et al. , 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such a simple approach has several problems. In particular, the typical keratometric index is too high and results in an overestimation of the corneal optical power (Dubbelman et al, 2006;Espinosa et al, 2007). Moreover, although the second corneal surface only contributes 10% of the total refractive power of the eye, a precise knowledge of its morphology is needed for the correct diagnosis and monitoring of corneal diseases or surgical interventions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Let us point out that, when using least squares to minimize the ' 2 -norm of the error, good approximation of a function does not mean good 235 approximation of its derivative. Thus, errors in heights have no direct correspondence with power errors and vice versa [12], as happens in Figure 4, where it can be seen that lower RMSD in height reconstruction does not assure a good optical modelling. Analysing a conic 240 surface with K ¼ À0.21, similar to a real cornea [13], we found that, although WLS fitting provides a slightly higher height-RMSD than OLS (4.10 Â 10 À4 versus 3.89 Â 10 À4 mm), the difference in the inner optical zone of pupil diameter 3 mm is almost one order of 245 magnitude lower (0.83 Â 10 À4 versus 4.88 Â 10 À4 mm).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%