Is blur sensitivity altered in children with progressive myopia?

Labhishetty, Vivek; Chakraborty, Arijit; Bobier, William R.

doi:10.1016/j.visres.2018.11.002

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The external validity of these results to visually symptomatic individuals and during longer near tasks requires further investigation, since the experimental sample of the current study was formed by visually asymptomatic young adults and the near task was relatively short. Lastly, most investigations with MiSight lenses have been conducted in children, and it will be of interest to assess visual performance and comfort in this population, as children have different blur sensitivity than adults [59].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of the accommodative response and facility with dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control

Vera

Redondo

Galán

et al. 2023

Contact Lens and Anterior Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To assess the impact of using dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control on the dynamics of the accommodative response and facility. Methods: 24 young adult myopes were fitted with dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control (MiSight®) and single-vision soft contact lenses (Proclear®). The WAM-5500 open-field autorefractor was used to measure the dynamics of the accommodative response (magnitude and variability) in binocular conditions, with accommodative data being gathered from the dominant eye, at three viewing distances (500 cm, 40 cm, and 20 cm) during 90 s. Also, the binocular accommodative facility was assessed with the WAM-5500 autorefractor. All participants performed the same experimental protocol with the dual-focus (MiSight) and single-vision (Proclear) soft contact lenses, with both experimental sessions being carried in two different days and following a counterbalanced order. Results: This study showed greater lags of accommodation with the MiSight than the Proclear lenses at near distances (40 cm: 1.27 ± 0.77 vs. 0.68 ± 0.37 D, corrected p-value = 0.002, Cohen-d = 0.90; and 20 cm: 1.47 ± 0.84 vs. 1.01 ± 0.52 D, corrected p-value = 0.007, Cohen-d = 0.75), whereas a higher variability of accommodation was observed with the dual-focus than the single-vision lenses at 500 cm (0.53 ± 0.11 vs. 0.23 ± 0.10 D), 40 cm (0.82 ± 0.31 vs. 0.68 ± 0.37 D), and 20 cm (1.50 ± 0.56 vs. 1.15 ± 0.39 D) (corrected p-value < 0.001 in all cases, and Cohen-ds = 0.67-2.33). Also, a worse quantitative (27.75 ± 8.79 vs. 34.29 ± 10.08 cycles per minute, p = 0.029, Cohen-d = 0.48) and qualitative (23.68 ± 7.12 vs. 28.43 ± 7.97 score, p = 0.039, Cohen-d = 0.45) performance was observed with the MiSight when compared to the Proclear lenses. Conclusions: The use of dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control alters the dynamics of accommodative response and facility in the short-term. Although this optical design has demonstrated its effectiveness for myopia control, eye care specialists should be aware of the acute effects of these lenses on accommodation performance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of the accommodative response and facility with dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control

Vera

Redondo

Galán

et al. 2023

Contact Lens and Anterior Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We suggest that the variations in BDTs are due to blur adaptation, which could be induced by blur perception. Labhishetty et al (2019) found there were no significant differences in BDTs between progressive myopic children and their non-myopic peers, which could be explained by compensation in higher visual processes for poor retinal image quality. Hence, the amount of BDT variations induced by additional blur caused by Ortho-K treatment was small, however, the difference is significant because the measurements are quite repeatable and precise.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…We speculate that the decreased accommodative lag is induced by blur adaptation, which is caused by the deterioration in visual quality following Ortho-K in children. The presence of similar BDTs in myopic and emmetropic children but a larger accommodative lag in myopic eyes means the low sensitivity to defocus could be compensated by some form of an adjustment in the higher visual processes (i.e., blur adaptation) to preserve or increase the subjective perception (Labhishetty et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blur Detection Sensitivity Increases in Children Using Orthokeratology

Tao

Mao

et al. 2021

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo investigate changes in blur detection sensitivity in children using orthokeratology (Ortho-K) and explore the relationships between blur detection thresholds (BDTs) and aberrations and accommodative function.MethodsThirty-two children aged 8–14 years old who underwent Ortho-K treatment participated in and completed this study. Their BDTs, aberrations, and accommodative responses (ARs) were measured before and after a month of Ortho-K treatment. A two forced-choice double-staircase procedure with varying extents of blur in three images (Tumbling Es, Lena, and Street View) was used to measure the BDTs. The participants were required to judge whether the images looked blurry. The BDT of each of the images (BDT_Es, BDT_Lena, and BDT_Street) was the average value of the last three reversals. The accommodative lag was quantified by the difference between the AR and the accommodative demand (AD). Changes in the BDTs, aberrations, and accommodative lags and their relationships were analyzed.ResultsAfter a month of wearing Ortho-K lenses, the children’s BDT_Es and BDT_Lena values decreased, the aberrations increased significantly (for all, P ≤0.050), and the accommodative lag decreased to a certain extent [T(31) = 2.029, P = 0.051]. Before Ortho-K treatment, higher-order aberrations (HOAs) were related to BDT_Lena (r = 0.463, P = 0.008) and the accommodative lag was related to BDT_Es (r = −0.356, P = −0.046). After one month, no significant correlations were found between the BDTs and aberrations or accommodative lags, as well as between the variations of them (for all, P ≥ 0.069).ConclusionOrtho-K treatment increased the children’s level of blur detection sensitivity, which may have contributed to their good visual acuity.

show abstract

“…Progressing myopes have large accommodative lags, micro‐fluctuations and an increased depth of focus, compared to non‐myopes, but similar blur detection thresholds. Therefore, progressing myopes seem to be less sensitive to retinal defocus, but this is compensated by some form of an adjustment in the higher visual processes to preserve the subjective percept, even when receiving poor retinal image quality . This cortical processing seems to override retinal defocus in those for whom the emmetropisation process has been compromised by a mismatch between the optical power of the eye and its axial length.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of un‐correction, under‐correction and over‐correction of myopia as a strategy for slowing myopic progression

Logan

Wolffsohn

2020

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review investigates the association between un‐, under‐ and over‐correction of myopic refractive error and myopia progression in children and adolescents (up to 18 years of age). The literature search included three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]), and reference lists of retrieved studies in any language. Eight prospective cohort studies and one retrospective analysis of clinical data provided comparison data on un‐ and under‐correction of myopia versus full‐correction of myopia; however, the quality of studies and length of follow‐up times varied. A forest plot showed no beneficial effect of under‐correction with some studies finding an increase in myopia progression. While one study suggested that myopia progression is slower in an un‐corrected cohort compared to those who are fully corrected, another study suggests the opposite. One study utilised anisomyopes to allow comparison of under‐correction of one eye with full‐correction of the fellow eye indicating that under‐correction in one eye appears to slow the rate of myopia progression in that eye. Another study on full‐correction only in one eye found that progression was faster in the un‐corrected eye. No benefits of over‐correction of myopia was found. The overall findings are equivocal with under‐correction causing a faster rate of myopia progression. There is no strong evidence of benefits from un‐correction, monovision or over‐correction. Hence, current clinical advice advocates for the full‐correction of myopia. Further studies are warranted to determine the level of myopia that can be left uncorrected without impacting on myopia progression and how this changes with time.

show abstract

Is blur sensitivity altered in children with progressive myopia?

Cited by 7 publications

References 58 publications

Dynamics of the accommodative response and facility with dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control

Dynamics of the accommodative response and facility with dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control

Blur Detection Sensitivity Increases in Children Using Orthokeratology

Role of un‐correction, under‐correction and over‐correction of myopia as a strategy for slowing myopic progression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About