Quantitative Analysis of Functional Changes Caused by Pinhole Glasses

Kim, Won Soo; Park, In Ki; Chun, Yeoun Sook

doi:10.1167/iovs.14-14801

Cited by 20 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Detailed methodologies for these examinations were described in our previous report (2). Briefly, distant VA was measured using a Snellen chart (Precision Vision, La Salle, IL, USA) at 4 m, and near VA was measured using the Logarithmic Visual Acuity Chart 2000 (Precision Vision) at 40 cm.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Objective and Subjective Changes Induced by Multiple-Pinhole Glasses and Single-Pinhole Glasses

Kim

Park

Park³

et al. 2017

J Korean Med Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple-pinhole (MPH) glasses are currently sold in many countries with unproven advertisements; however, their objective and subjective effects have not been investigated. Therefore, to investigate the effects of MPH glasses excluding the single-pinhole (SPH) effect, we compared the visual functional changes, reading speed, and ocular discomfort after reading caused by MPH and SPH glasses. Healthy 36 participants with a mean age of 33.1 years underwent examinations of pupil size, visual acuity (VA), depth of focus (DOF), and near point accommodation (NPA); tests for visual field (VF), contrast sensitivity (CS), stereopsis, and reading speed; and a survey of ocular discomfort after reading. Both types of pinhole glasses enlarged pupil diameter and improved VA, DOF, and NPA. However, CS, stereopsis, and VF parameters deteriorated. In comparison with SPH glasses, MPH glasses induced smaller pupil dilation (5.3 and 5.9 mm, P < 0.001) and showed better VF parameters with preserved peripheral VF. However, no significant difference was observed for VA, DOF, NPA, stereopsis, and CS. Reading speed using pinhole glasses was significantly slower than baseline; SPH glasses showed the slowest reading speed. Both types of glasses caused significant ocular discomfort after reading compared with baseline, and symptoms were worst with MPH glasses. In conclusion, both types of pinhole glasses had positive effects due to the pinhole effect; however, they had negative effects on VF, CS, stereopsis, reading speed, and ocular discomfort. In spite of the increased luminance and preserved peripheral VF with MPHs, these glasses caused more severe ocular discomfort than SPH glasses. This clinical trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02572544).

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our previous study, we showed that MPH glasses improved uncorrected near and far visual acuity (VA), DOF, and accommodative amplitude; however, they reduced visual field (VF) sensitivity, contrast sensitivity (CS), and stereopsis (2). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Comparison of Objective and Subjective Changes Induced by Multiple-Pinhole Glasses and Single-Pinhole Glasses

Kim

Park

Park³

et al. 2017

J Korean Med Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Small pupils have been introduced into the spectacle plane, corneal plane and iris plane . Placing a small pupil into the spectacle plane will expand the eye's depth of field (as proposed by Donders), but will also drastically reduce the field of view (for example, a 1 mm pinhole placed 17 mm in front of the eye's entrance pupil will start vignetting the retinal image for field eccentricities of about +/−3 degrees), which limits the clinical utility of such an approach. One strategy to deal with this field restriction has been to employ multiple pinholes in the spectacle plane, obtaining some depth of field expansion and each individual pinhole allowing light to reach the retina from different field locations producing a complex patchwork of images and scotomas .…”

Section: Small Aperture Opticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pinhole spectacle devices have employed pupils less than 1 mm (for example, 0.9 mm), with a resulting diffraction limit of < 30 cpd, which predictably impairs focused vision in the central field at photopic light levels . For example, the KAMRA corneal inlays employ a 1.6 mm artificial pupil, which has proven effective at providing reading at near in photopic conditions .…”

Section: Small Aperture Opticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correction of presbyopia: old problems with old (and new) solutions

Kollbaum

Bradley

2020

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We live in a three‐dimensional world and the human eye can focus images from a wide range of distances by adjusting the power of the eye's lens (accommodation). Progressive senescent changes in the lens ultimately lead to a complete loss of this ability by about age 50, which then requires alternative strategies to generate high‐quality retinal images for far and close viewing distances. This review paper highlights the biomimetic properties and underlying optical mechanisms of induced anisometropia, small apertures, dynamic lenses, and multi‐optic lenses in ameliorating the visual consequences of presbyopia. Specifically, the advantages and consequences of non‐liner neural summation leveraged in monovision treatments are reviewed. Additionally, the value of a small pupil is quantified, and the impact of pinhole pupil location and their effects on neural sensitivity are examined. Different strategies of generating multifocal optics are also examined, and specifically the interaction between ocular and contact or intraocular lens aberrations and their effect on resulting image quality are simulated. Interestingly, most of the novel strategies for aiding presbyopic and pseudophakic eyes (for example, monovision, multifocality, pinhole pupils) have emerged naturally via evolution in a range of species.

show abstract

“…Typically these spectacles now have pinholes about 1 mm in diameter arranged in a triangular lattice of side length about 3 mm across the surface of each opaque plastic lens. Perhaps surprisingly, only a few serious attempts to study their effects on vision have been made …”

Section: Early Use Of Pinholes In Spectaclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pinholes and presbyopia: solution or sideshow?

Charman

2019

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantitative Analysis of Functional Changes Caused by Pinhole Glasses

Cited by 20 publications

References 27 publications

Comparison of Objective and Subjective Changes Induced by Multiple-Pinhole Glasses and Single-Pinhole Glasses

Comparison of Objective and Subjective Changes Induced by Multiple-Pinhole Glasses and Single-Pinhole Glasses

Correction of presbyopia: old problems with old (and new) solutions

Pinholes and presbyopia: solution or sideshow?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About