This article proposes a simple model that describes the quantitative relationship between visual acuity and defocus (as in defocus curves) in the presence of higher-order aberrations (HOA).
Methods
The basis model for describing the relationship between visual acuity and blur was taken from Blendowske as a starting point to develop an extended model applicable to defocus curves. The basis of Blendowskes’s data is extended by incorporating effects induced by HOA. Aberrometric refractive errors are transformed into a single blur quantity b, also termed dioptric distance, which serves as an input in both models. The possible influence of the axes of asymmetric aberrations and the pupil size is not included.
Results
The extended model has been used to generate reference data for a bi-aspheric multifocal correction profile for presbyopia. It provides reference data similar to what has been reported in the literature for that particular profile.
Conclusions
The model proposed in this article can be used to determine depth-of-focus effects associated with the presence of HOA. The extended model seems to provide a valid description for defocus curves. Actual uncertainties in experimental data on unaided visual acuity, especially the frequent lack of information on pupil diameter, prevent meaningful numerical comparison and the refinement of both models. However, theoretical arguments are provided in support of the extended model.
PostCTJr. Comparison of depth of focus and low-contrast acuities for monofocal versus multifocal intraocular lens patients at 1 year. Ophthalmology. 1992; 99: 1658–1663.
2.
RubinAHarrisWF. Closed surfaces of constant visual acuity in symmetric dioptric power space. Optom Vis Sci2001; 78: 744–753.
3.
WilliamsDYoonGYPorterJ,et al.Visual benefit of correcting higher order aberrations of the eye. J Refract Surg2000; 16: S554–S559.
4.
RochaKMVabreLChateauN,et al.Expanding depth of focus by modifying higher-order aberrations induced by an adaptive optics visual simulator. J Cataract Refract Surg2009; 35: 1885–1892.
5.
BlendowskeR. Unaided visual acuity and blur: a simple model. Optom Vis Sci2015; 92: e121–e125.
6.
YoonGYWilliamsDR. Visual performance after correcting the monochromatic and chromatic aberrations of the eye. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis2002; 19: 266–275.
7.
LeibowitzH. The effect of pupil size on visual acuity for photometrically equated test fields at various levels of luminance. J Opt Soc Am1952; 42: 416–422.
8.
FauquierCBonninTMiegeV,et al.Influence of combined power error and astigmatism on visual acuity. In: Vision science and its applications, OSA technical digest series. Washington, DC: Optical Society of America, 1995, pp.151–154.
9.
RaaschTW. Spherocylindrical refractive errors and visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci1995; 72: 272–275.
10.
VillegasEAAlcónEArtalP. Optical quality of the eye in subjects with normal and excellent visual acuity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2008; 49: 4688–4696.
11.
ApplegateRA. Limits to vision: can we do better than nature?J Refract Surg2000; 16: S547–S551.
12.
VillegasEAAlcónEArtalP. Minimum amount of astigmatism that should be corrected. J Cataract Refract Surg2014; 40: 13–19.
13.
TaberneroJKlyceSDSarverEJ,et al.Functional optical zone of the cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2007; 48: 1053–1060.
14.
BauduPPeninFArba MosqueraS. Uncorrected binocular performance after biaspheric ablation profile for presbyopic corneal treatment using AMARIS with the PresbyMAX module. Am J Ophthalmol2013; 155: 636–647. 647.
15.
UthoffDPölzlMHepperD,et al.A new method of cornea modulation with excimer laser for simultaneous correction of presbyopia and ametropia. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol2012; 250: 1649–1661.
16.
LugerMHEweringTArba-MosqueraS. One-year experience in presbyopia correction with biaspheric multifocal central presbyopia laser in situ keratomileusis. Cornea2013; 32: 644–652.
17.
KohnenTBöhmMHerzogM,et al.Near visual acuity and patient-reported outcomes in presbyopic patients after bilateral multifocal aspheric laser in situ keratomileusis excimer laser surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg2020; 46: 944–952.
18.
LugerMHAMcAlindenCBuckhurstPJ,et al.Long-term outcomes after LASIK using a hybrid bi-aspheric micro-monovision ablation profile for presbyopia correction. J Refract Surg2020; 36: 89–96.
19.
ZheleznyakLSabesanROhJS,et al.Modified monovision with spherical aberration to improve presbyopic through-focus visual performance. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2013; 54: 3157–3165.
20.
WangJYSilvaDE. Wave-front interpretation with Zernike polynomials. Appl Opt1980; 19: 1510–1518.
21.
BenardYLopez-GilNLegrasR. Optimizing the subjective depth-of-focus with combinations of fourth- and sixth-order spherical aberration. Vision Res2011; 51: 2471–2477.
22.
IskanderDRCollinsMJDavisB. Optimal modeling of corneal surfaces with zernike polynomials. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2001; 48: 87–95.
23.
GuptaNWolffsohnJSNarooSA. Optimizing measurement of subjective amplitude of accommodation with defocus curves. J Cataract Refract Surg2008; 34: 1329–1338.
24.
Zapata-DíazJFMarín-FranchIRadhakrishnanH,et al.Impact of higher-order aberrations on depth-of-field. J Vis2018; 18: 5.
25.
SmithG. Relation between spherical refractive error and visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci1991; 68: 591–598.
26.
AtchisonDAMathurA. Visual acuity with astigmatic blur. Optom Vis Sci2011; 88: E798–E805.
27.
Arba-Mosquera S, de Ortueta D and Merayo-Lloves J. Tissue-saving zernike terms selection in customized treatments for refractive surgery. J Optom2009; 2: 182–196.
28.
LugerMHMcAlindenCBuckhurstPJ,et al.Presbyopic LASIK using hybrid bi-aspheric micro-monovision ablation profile for presbyopic corneal treatments. Am J Ophthalmol2015; 160: 493–505.
29.
ChaudhryMSahSPSharmaIP,et al.Does offering only the spherical contact lens trial to the low astigmats mislead the practitioners?Int J Ophthalmol2021; 14: 1281–1284.
30.
ReinsteinDZMorralMGobbeM,et al.Accuracy of refractive outcomes in myopic and hyperopic laser in situ keratomileusis: manifest versus aberrometric refraction. J Cataract Refract Surg2012; 38: 1989–1995.
31.
TaneriSArba-MosqueraSRostA,et al.Repeatability and reproducibility of manifest refraction. J Cataract Refract Surg2020; 46: 1659–1666.
SouthJGaoTCollinsA,et al.Aniseikonia and anisometropia: implications for suppression and amblyopia. Clin Exp Optom2019; 102: 556–565.
34.
AtchisonDASmithGEfronN. The effect of pupil size on visual acuity in uncorrected and corrected myopia. Am J Optom Physiol Opt1979; 56: 315–323.
35.
HolladayJTLynnMJWaringGOIII,et al.The relationship of visual acuity, refractive error, and pupil size after radial keratotomy. Arch Ophthalmol1991; 109: 70–76.
36.
MillerDThibosLHongX. Requirements for segmented correctors for diffraction-limited performance in the human eye. Opt Express2005; 13: 275–289.
37.
KamiyaKKobashiHShimizuK,et al.Effect of pupil size on uncorrected visual acuity in astigmatic eyes. Br J Ophthalmol2012; 96: 267–270.
38.
HuhJEomYYangSK,et al.A comparison of clinical outcomes and optical performance between monofocal and new monofocal with enhanced intermediate function intraocular lenses: a case-control study. BMC Ophthalmol2021; 21: 365.
39.
NaeserKHjortdalJØHarrisWF. Pseudophakic monovision: optimal distribution of refractions. Acta Ophthalmol2014; 92: 270–275.
40.
ShettyRBrarSSharmaM,et al.PresbyLASIK: a review of PresbyMAX, supracor, and laser blended vision: principles, planning, and outcomes. Indian J Ophthalmol2020; 68: 2723–2731.
41.
ApplegateRASarverEJKhemsaraV. Are all aberrations equal?J Refract Surg2002; 18: S556–S562.
