Evaluation of hemifield sector analysis protocol in multifocal visual evoked potential (MFVEP) objective perimetry for the diagnosis and early detection of glaucomatous field defects

Visual field assessment is a core component of glaucoma diagnosis and monitoring, and the Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) test is considered up until this moment, the gold standard of visual field assessment. Although SAP is a subjective assessment and has many pitfalls, it is being constantly used in the diagnosis of visual field loss in glaucoma. Multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) is a newly introduced method used for visual field assessment objectively. Several analysis protocols have been tested to identify early visual field losses in glaucoma patients using the mfVEP technique, some were successful in detection of field defects, which were comparable to the standard SAP visual field assessment, and others were not very informative and needed more adjustment and research work. In this study, we implemented a novel analysis approach and evaluated its validity and whether it could be used effectively for early detection of visual field defects in glaucoma. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of a new analysis method in the Multi-Focal Visual Evoked Potential (mfVEP) when it is used for the objective assessment of the visual field in glaucoma patients, compared to the gold standard technique. METHODS: 3 groups were tested in this study; normal controls (38 eyes), glaucoma patients (36 eyes) and glaucoma suspect patients (38 eyes). All subjects had a two standard Humphrey visual field HFA test 24-2 and a single mfVEP test undertaken in one session. Analysis of the mfVEP results was done using the new analysis protocol; the Hemifield Sector Analysis HSA protocol. Analysis of the HFA was done using the standard grading system. RESULTS: Analysis of mfVEP results showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the 3 groups in the mean signal to noise ratio SNR (ANOVA p<0.001 with a 95% CI). The difference between superior and inferior hemispheres in all subjects were all statistically significant in the glaucoma patient group 11/11 sectors (t-test p<0.001), partially significant 5/11 (t-test p<0.01) and no statistical difference between most sectors in normal group (only 1/11 was significant) (t-test p<0.9). sensitivity and specificity of the HAS protocol in detecting glaucoma was 97% and 86% respectively, while for glaucoma suspect were 89% and 79%. DISCUSSION: The results showed that the new analysis protocol was able to confirm already existing field defects detected by standard HFA, was able to differentiate between the 3 study groups with a clear distinction between normal and patients with suspected glaucoma; however the distinction between normal and glaucoma patients was especially clear and significant. CONCLUSION: The new HSA protocol used in the mfVEP testing can be used to detect glaucomatous visual field defects in both glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patient. Using this protocol can provide information about focal visual field differences across the horizontal midline, which can be utilized to differentiate between glaucoma and normal subjects. Sensitivity and specificity of the mfVEP test showed very promising results and correlated with other anatomical changes in glaucoma field loss.

The role of hemifield sector analysis in multifocal visual evoked potential objective perimetry in the early detection of glaucomatous visual field defects

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a new analysis method of mfVEP objective perimetry in the early detection of glaucomatous visual field defects compared to the gold standard technique. Methods and patients: Three groups were tested in this study; normal controls (38 eyes), glaucoma patients (36 eyes), and glaucoma suspect patients (38 eyes). All subjects underwent two standard 24-2 visual field tests: one with the Humphrey Field Analyzer and a single mfVEP test in one session. Analysis of the mfVEP results was carried out using the new analysis protocol: the hemifield sector analysis protocol. Results: Analysis of the mfVEP showed that the signal to noise ratio (SNR) difference between superior and inferior hemifields was statistically significant between the three groups (analysis of variance, P<0.001 with a 95% confidence interval, 2.82, 2.89 for normal group; 2.25, 2.29 for glaucoma suspect group; 1.67, 1.73 for glaucoma group). The difference between superior and inferior hemifield sectors and hemi-rings was statistically significant in 11/11 pair of sectors and hemi-rings in the glaucoma patients group (t-test P<0.001), statistically significant in 5/11 pairs of sectors and hemi-rings in the glaucoma suspect group (t-test P<0.01), and only 1/11 pair was statistically significant (t-test P<0.9). The sensitivity and specificity of the hemifield sector analysis protocol in detecting glaucoma was 97% and 86% respectively and 89% and 79% in glaucoma suspects. These results showed that the new analysis protocol was able to confirm existing visual field defects detected by standard perimetry, was able to differentiate between the three study groups with a clear distinction between normal patients and those with suspected glaucoma, and was able to detect early visual field changes not detected by standard perimetry. In addition, the distinction between normal and glaucoma patients was especially clear and significant using this analysis. Conclusion: The new hemifield sector analysis protocol used in mfVEP testing can be used to detect glaucomatous visual field defects in both glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients. Using this protocol, it can provide information about focal visual field differences across the horizontal midline, which can be utilized to differentiate between glaucoma and normal subjects. The sensitivity and specificity of the mfVEP test showed very promising results and correlated with other anatomical changes in glaucomatous visual field loss. The intersector analysis protocol can detect early field changes not detected by the standard Humphrey Field Analyzer test. © 2013 Mousa et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd.

Clinical evaluation of a multifocal aspheric diffractive intraocular lens

Aim: To evaluate the performance of an aspheric diffractive multifocal acrylic intraocular lens (IOL), ZMB00 1-Piece Tecnis. Setting: Five sites across Europe. Methods: Fifty-two patients with cataracts (average age 68.5±10.5 years, 35 female) were bilaterally implanted with the aspheric diffractive multifocal IOL after completing a questionnaire regarding their optical visual symptoms, use of visual correction and their visual satisfaction. The questionnaire was completed again 4-6 months after surgery along with measures of uncorrected and best-corrected distance and near visual acuity, under photopic and mesopic lighting, reading ability, defocus curve testing and ocular examination for adverse events. Results: The residual refractive error was 0.01±0.47D with 56% of eyes within ±0.25D and 97% within ±1.0D. Uncorrected visual acuity was 0.02±0.10logMAR at distance and 0.15±0.30 logMAR at near, only reducing to 0.07±0.10logMAR at distance and 0.21±0.25logMAR at near in mesopic conditions.The defocus curve showed a near addition between 2.5-3.0 D allowing a reading acuity of 0.08±0.13 logMAR, with a range of clear vision <0.3 logMAR of ∼4.0 D. The average reading speed was 121.4±30.8 words per minute. Spectacle independence was 100% for distance and 88% for near, with high levels of satisfaction reported. Overall rating of vision without glasses could be explained (r=0.760) by preoperative best-corrected distance acuity, postoperative reading acuity and postoperative uncorrected distance acuity in photopic conditions (p<0.001). Only two minor adverse events occurred. Conclusions: The ZMB00 1-Piece Tecnis multifocal IOL provides a good visual outcome at distance and near with minimal adverse effects.

Visual performance of a new bi-aspheric, segmented, asymmetric multifocal IOL

PURPOSE: To assess the visual performance and subjective experience of eyes implanted with a new bi-aspheric, segmented, multifocal intraocular lens: the Mplus X (Topcon Europe Medical, Capelle aan den IJssel, Netherlands). METHODS: Seventeen patients (mean age: 64.0 ± 12.8 years) had binocular implantation (34 eyes) with the Mplus X. Three months after the implantation, assessment was made of: manifest refraction; uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity; uncorrected and distance corrected near visual acuity; defocus curves in photopic conditions; contrast sensitivity; halometry as an objective measure of glare; and patient satisfaction with unaided near vision using the Near Acuity Visual Questionnaire. RESULTS: Mean residual manifest refraction was -0.13 ± 0.51 diopters (D). Twenty-five eyes (74%) were within a mean spherical equivalent of ±0.50 D. Mean uncorrected distance visual acuity was +0.10 ± 0.12 logMAR monocularly and 0.02 ± 0.09 logMAR binocularly. Thirty-two eyes (94%) could read 0.3 or better without any reading correction and all patients could read 0.3 or better with a reading correction. Mean monocular uncorrected near visual acuity was 0.18 ± 0.16 logMAR, improving to 0.15 ± 0.15 logMAR with distance correction. Mean binocular uncorrected near visual acuity was 0.11 ± 0.11 logMAR, improving to 0.09 ± 0.12 logMAR with distance correction. Mean binocular contrast sensitivity was 1.75 ± 0.14 log units at 3 cycles per degree, 1.88 ± 0.20 log units at 6 cycles per degree, 1.66 ± 0.19 log units at 12 cycles per degree, and 1.11 ± 0.20 log units at 18 cycles per degree. Mean binocular and monocular halometry showed a glare profile of less than 1° of debilitating light scatter. Mean Near Acuity Visual Questionnaire Rasch score (0 = no difficulty, 100 = extreme difficulty) for satisfaction for near vision was 20.43 ± 14.64 log-odd units. CONCLUSIONS: The Mplus X provides a good visual outcome at distance and near with minimal dysphotopsia. Patients were very satisfied with their uncorrected near vision. © SLACK Incorporated.

Determining which factors influence the optimum multifocal contact lens correction for presbyopia

Presbyopia is a consequence of ageing and is therefore increasing inprevalence due to an increase in the ageing population. Of the many methods available to manage presbyopia, the use of contact lenses is indeed a tried and tested reversible option for those wishing to be spectacle free. Contact lens options to correct presbyopia include multifocal contact lenses and monovision.Several options have been available for many years with available guides to help choose multifocal contact lenses. However there is no comprehensive way to help the practitioner selecting the best option for an individual. An examination of the simplest way of predicting the most suitable multifocal lens for a patient will only enhance and add to the current evidence available. The purpose of the study was to determine the current use of presbyopic correction modalities in an optometric practice population in the UK and to evaluate and compare the optical performance of four silicone hydrogel soft multifocal contact lenses and to compare multifocal performance with contact lens monovision. The presbyopic practice cohort principal forms of refractive correction were distance spectacles (with near and intermediate vision providedby a variety of other forms of correction), varifocal spectacles and unaided distance with reading spectacles, with few patients wearing contact lenses as their primary correction modality. The results of the multifocal contact lens randomised controlled trial showed that there were only minor differences in corneal physiology between the lens options. Visual acuity differences were observed for distance targets, but only for low contrast letters and under mesopic lighting conditions. At closer distances between 20cm and 67cm, the defocus curves demonstrated that there were significant differences in acuity between lens designs (p < 0.001) and there was an interaction between the lens design and the level of defocus (p < 0.001). None of the lenses showed a clear near addition, perhaps due to their more aspheric rather than zoned design. As expected, stereoacuity was reduced with monovision compared with the multifocal contact lens designs, although there were some differences between the multifocal lens designs (p < 0.05). Reading speed did not differ between lens designs (F = 1.082, p = 0.368), whereas there was a significant difference in critical print size (F = 7.543, p < 0.001). Glare was quantified with a novel halometer and halo size was found to significantly differ between lenses(F = 4.101, p = 0.004). The rating of iPhone image clarity was significantly different between presbyopic corrections (p = 0.002) as was the Near Acuity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) rating of near performance (F = 3.730, p = 0.007).The pupil size did not alter with contact lens design (F = 1.614, p = 0.175), but was larger in the dominant eye (F = 5.489, p = 0.025). Pupil decentration relative to the optical axis did not alter with contact lens design (F = 0.777, p =0.542), but was also greater in the dominant eye (F = 9.917, p = 0.003). It was interesting to note that there was no difference in spherical aberrations induced between the contact lens designs (p > 0.05), with eye dominance (p > 0.05) oroptical component (ocular, corneal or internal: p > 0.05). In terms of subjective patient lens preference, 10 patients preferred monovision,12 Biofinity multifocal lens, 7 Purevision 2 for Presbyopia, 4 AirOptix multifocal and 2 Oasys multifocal contact lenses. However, there were no differences in demographic factors relating to lifestyle or personality, or physiological characteristics such as pupil size or ocular aberrations as measured at baseline,which would allow a practitioner to identify which lens modality the patient would prefer. In terms of the performance of patients with their preferred lens, it emerged that Biofinity multifocal lens preferring patients had a better high contrast acuity under photopic conditions, maintained their reading speed at smaller print sizes and subjectively rated iPhone clarity as better with this lens compared with the other lens designs trialled. Patients who preferred monovision had a lower acuity across a range of distances and a larger area of glare than those patients preferring other lens designs that was unexplained by the clinical metrics measured. However, it seemed that a complex interaction of aberrations may drive lens preference. New clinical tests or more diverse lens designs which may allow practitioners to prescribe patients the presbyopic contact lens option that will work best for them first time remains a hope for the future.

Evaluation of hemifield sector analysis protocol in multifocal visual evoked potential objective perimetry for the diagnosis and early detection of glaucomatous field defects

CONCLUSIONS: The new HSA protocol used in the mfVEP testing can be applied to detect glaucomatous visual field defects in both glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients. Using this protocol can provide information about focal visual field differences across the horizontal midline, which can be utilized to differentiate between glaucoma and normal subjects. Sensitivity and specificity of the mfVEP test showed very promising results and correlated with other anatomical changes in glaucoma field loss. PURPOSE: Multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) is a newly introduced method used for objective visual field assessment. Several analysis protocols have been tested to identify early visual field losses in glaucoma patients using the mfVEP technique, some were successful in detection of field defects, which were comparable to the standard automated perimetry (SAP) visual field assessment, and others were not very informative and needed more adjustment and research work. In this study we implemented a novel analysis approach and evaluated its validity and whether it could be used effectively for early detection of visual field defects in glaucoma. METHODS: Three groups were tested in this study; normal controls (38 eyes), glaucoma patients (36 eyes) and glaucoma suspect patients (38 eyes). All subjects had a two standard Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) test 24-2 and a single mfVEP test undertaken in one session. Analysis of the mfVEP results was done using the new analysis protocol; the hemifield sector analysis (HSA) protocol. Analysis of the HFA was done using the standard grading system. RESULTS: Analysis of mfVEP results showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the three groups in the mean signal to noise ratio (ANOVA test, p < 0.001 with a 95% confidence interval). The difference between superior and inferior hemispheres in all subjects were statistically significant in the glaucoma patient group in all 11 sectors (t-test, p < 0.001), partially significant in 5 / 11 (t-test, p < 0.01), and no statistical difference in most sectors of the normal group (1 / 11 sectors was significant, t-test, p < 0.9). Sensitivity and specificity of the HSA protocol in detecting glaucoma was 97% and 86%, respectively, and for glaucoma suspect patients the values were 89% and 79%, respectively.

The benefit of combining standard automated perimetry and multifocal visual evoked potential hemifield intersector analysis in suspecious glaucomatous visual field defects

Several analysis protocols have been tested to identify early visual field losses in glaucoma patients using the mfVEP technique, some were successful in detection of field defects, which were comparable to the standard SAP visual field assessment, and others were not very informative and needed more adjustment and research work. In this study we implemented a novel analysis approach and evaluated its validity and whether it could be used effectively for early detection of visual field defects in glaucoma. The purpose of this study is to examine the benefit of adding mfVEP hemifield Intersector analysis protocol to the standard HFA test when there is suspicious glaucomatous visual field loss. 3 groups were tested in this study; normal controls (38 eyes), glaucoma patients (36 eyes) and glaucoma suspect patients (38 eyes). All subjects had a two standard Humphrey visual field HFA test 24-2, optical coherence tomography of the optic nerve head, and a single mfVEP test undertaken in one session. Analysis of the mfVEP results was done using the new analysis protocol; the Hemifield Sector Analysis HSA protocol. The retinal nerve fibre (RNFL) thickness was recorded to identify subjects with suspicious RNFL loss. The hemifield Intersector analysis of mfVEP results showed that signal to noise ratio (SNR) difference between superior and inferior hemifields was statistically significant between the 3 groups (ANOVA p<0.001 with a 95% CI). The difference between superior and inferior hemispheres in all subjects were all statistically significant in the glaucoma patient group 11/11 sectors (t-test p<0.001), partially significant 5/11 in glaucoma suspect group (t-test p<0.01) and no statistical difference between most sectors in normal group (only 1/11 was significant) (t-test p<0.9). Sensitivity and specificity of the HSA protocol in detecting glaucoma was 97% and 86% respectively, while for glaucoma suspect were 89% and 79%. The use of SAP and mfVEP results in subjects with suspicious glaucomatous visual field defects, identified by low RNFL thickness, is beneficial in confirming early visual field defects. The new HSA protocol used in the mfVEP testing can be used to detect glaucomatous visual field defects in both glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patient. Using this protocol in addition to SAP analysis can provide information about focal visual field differences across the horizontal midline, and confirm suspicious field defects. Sensitivity and specificity of the mfVEP test showed very promising results and correlated with other anatomical changes in glaucoma field loss. The Intersector analysis protocol can detect early field changes not detected by standard HFA test.

The effect of nutritional supplementation on the multifocal electroretinogram in healthy eyes

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated an increase in macular pigment optical density (MPOD) with lutein (L)-based supplementation in healthy eyes. However, not all studies have assessed whether this increase in MPOD is associated with changes to other measures of retinal function such as the multifocal ERG (mfERG). Some studies also fail to report dietary levels of L and zeaxanthin (Z). Because of the associations between increased levels of L and Z, and reduced risk of AMD, this study was designed to assess the effects of L-based supplementation on mfERG amplitudes and latencies in healthy eyes. METHODS: Multifocal ERG amplitudes, visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, MPOD and dietary levels of L and Z were assessed in this longitudinal, randomized clinical trial. Fifty-two healthy eyes from 52 participants were randomly allocated to receive a L-based supplement (treated group), or no supplement (non-treated group). RESULTS: There were 25 subjects aged 18-77 (mean age ± SD; 48 ± 17) in the treated group and 27 subjects aged 21-69 (mean age ± SD; 43 ± 16) in the non-treated group. All participants attended for three visits: visit one at baseline, visit two at 20 weeks and visit three at 40 weeks. A statistically significant increase in MPOD (F = 17.0, p ≤ 0.001) and shortening of mfERG ring 2 P1 latency (F = 3.69, p = 0.04) was seen in the treated group. CONCLUSIONS: Although the results were not clinically significant, the reported trend for improvement in MPOD and mfERG outcomes warrants further investigation.

Accommodation in young adults wearing multifocal soft contact lenses under long- and short- wavelength lighting

Purpose: Several studies have suggested accommodative lags may serve as a stimulus for myopic growth, and while a blurred foveal image is believed to the main stimulus for accommodation, spectral composition of the retinal image is also believed to influence accommodative accuracy. Of particular interest is how altering spectral lighting conditions influences accommodation in the presence of soft multifocal contact lenses, which are currently being used off-label for myopia control. Methods: Accommodative responses were assessed using a Grand Seiko WAM-5500 autorefractor for four target distances: 25, 33, 50, and 100cm for 30 young adult subjects (14 myopic, 16 emmetropic; mean refractive errors (±SD, D) -4.22±2.04 and -0.15±0.67 respectively). Measurements were obtained with four different soft contact lenses, Single vision distance (SVD), Single vision near (SVN), Centre-Near (CN) and Centre-Distance (CD) (+1.50 add), and three different lighting conditions: red (peak λ 632nm), blue (peak λ 460nm), and white (peak λ 560nm). Corrections for chromatic differences in refraction were made prior to calculating accommodative errors. Results: The size of accommodative errors was significantly affected by lens design (p<0.001), lighting (p=0.027), and target distance (p=0.009). Mean accommodative errors were significantly larger with the SV lenses compared to the CD and CN designs (p<0.001). Errors were also significantly larger under blue light compared to white (p=0.004) and a significant interaction noted between lens design and lighting (p<0.001). Blue light generally decreased accommodative lags and increased accommodative leads relative to white and red light, the opposite was true of red light (p≤0.001). Lens design also significantly influenced direction of accommodative error (i.e. lag or lead) (p<0.001). Interactions with or between refractive groups were not found to be statistically significant for either the magnitude or direction of accommodative error (p>0.05 for all). Conclusions: Accuracy of accommodation is affected by both lens design and by wavelength of lighting. These accommodative lag data lend some support to recent speculation about the potential therapeutic value of lighting with a spectral bias towards blue during near work for myopia, although such treatment effects are likely to be more subtle under broad compared to the narrow spectrum lighting conditions used here.

Can aberrometry provide rapid and reliable measures of subjective depth of focus following multifocal intraocular lens implantation?

Purpose: To determine whether the ‘through-focus’ aberrations of a multifocal and accommodative intraocular lens (IOL) implanted patient can be used to provide rapid and reliable measures of their subjective range of clear vision. Methods: Eyes that had been implanted with a concentric (n = 8), segmented (n = 10) or accommodating (n = 6) intraocular lenses (mean age 62.9 ± 8.9 years; range 46-79 years) for over a year underwent simultaneous monocular subjective (electronic logMAR test chart at 4m with letters randomised between presentations) and objective (Aston open-field aberrometer) defocus curve testing for levels of defocus between +1.50 to -5.00DS in -0.50DS steps, in a randomised order. Pupil size and ocular aberration (a combination of the patient’s and the defocus inducing lens aberrations) at each level of blur was measured by the aberrometer. Visual acuity was measured subjectively at each level of defocus to determine the traditional defocus curve. Objective acuity was predicted using image quality metrics. Results: The range of clear focus differed between the three IOL types (F=15.506, P=0.001) as well as between subjective and objective defocus curves (F=6.685, p=0.049). There was no statistically significant difference between subjective and objective defocus curves in the segmented or concentric ring MIOL group (P>0.05). However a difference was found between the two measures and the accommodating IOL group (P<0.001). Mean Delta logMAR (predicted minus measured logMAR) across all target vergences was -0.06 ± 0.19 logMAR. Predicted logMAR defocus curves for the multifocal IOLs did not show a near vision addition peak, unlike the subjective measurement of visual acuity. However, there was a strong positive correlation between measured and predicted logMAR for all three IOLs (Pearson’s correlation: P<0.001). Conclusions: Current subjective procedures are lengthy and do not enable important additional measures such as defocus curves under differently luminance or contrast levels to be assessed, which may limit our understanding of MIOL performance in real-world conditions. In general objective aberrometry measures correlated well with the subjective assessment indicating the relative robustness of this technique in evaluating post-operative success with segmented and concentric ring MIOL.

Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Focus on Etiology

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) caused by reactivation of the JC virus (JCV), a human polyomavirus, occurs in autoimmune disorders, most frequently in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). We describe a HIV-negative 34-year-old female with SLE who had been treated with immunosuppressant therapy (IST; steroids and azathioprine) since 2004. In 2011, she developed decreased sensation and weakness of the right hand, followed by vertigo and gait instability. The diagnosis of PML was made on the basis of brain MRI findings (posterior fossa lesions) and JCV isolation from the cerebrospinal fluid (700 copies/ml). IST was immediately discontinued. Cidofovir, mirtazapine, mefloquine and cycles of cytarabine were sequentially added, but there was progressive deterioration with a fatal outcome 1 year after disease onset. This report discusses current therapeutic choices for PML and the importance of early infection screening when SLE patients present with neurological symptoms. In the light of recent reports of PML in SLE patients treated with rituximab or belimumab, we highlight that other IST may just as well be implicated. We conclude that severe lymphopenia was most likely responsible for JCV reactivation in this patient and discuss how effective management of lymphopenia in SLE and PML therapy remains an unmet need.

Influence of presbyopic corrections on driving-related eye and head movements

Purpose: To investigate whether wearing different presbyopic vision corrections alters the pattern of eye and head movements when viewing and responding to driving-related traffic scenes. Methods: Participants included 20 presbyopes (mean age: 56.1 ± 5.7 years) who had no experience of wearing presbyopic vision corrections, apart from single vision (SV) reading spectacles. Each participant wore five different vision corrections: distance SV lenses, progressive addition spectacle lenses (PAL), bifocal spectacle lenses (BIF), monovision (MV) and multifocal contact lenses (MTF CL). For each visual condition, participants were required to view videotape recordings of traffic scenes, track a reference vehicle, and identify a series of peripherally presented targets. Digital numerical display panels were also included as near visual stimuli (simulating the visual displays of a vehicle speedometer and radio). Eye and head movements were measured, and the accuracy of target recognition was also recorded. Results: The path length of eye movements while viewing and responding to driving-related traffic scenes was significantly longer when wearing BIF and PAL than MV and MTF CL (both p ≤ 0.013). The path length of head movements was greater with SV, BIF, and PAL than MV and MTF CL (all p < 0.001). Target recognition and brake response times were not significantly affected by vision correction, whereas target recognition was less accurate when the near stimulus was located at eccentricities inferiorly and to the left, rather than directly below the primary position of gaze (p = 0.008), regardless of vision correction. Conclusions: Different presbyopic vision corrections alter eye and head movement patterns. The longer path length of eye and head movements and greater number of saccades associated with the spectacle presbyopic corrections may affect some aspects of driving performance.

Effect of presbyopic vision corrections on perceptions of driving difficulty

Objectives: As the population ages, more people will be wearing presbyopic vision corrections when driving. However, little is known about the impact of these vision corrections on driving performance. This study aimed to determine the subjective driving difficulties experienced when wearing a range of common presbyopic contact lens and spectacle corrections.----- Methods: A questionnaire was developed and piloted that included a series of items regarding difficulties experienced while driving under daytime and night-time conditions (rated on five-point and seven-point Likert scales). Participants included 255 presbyopic patients recruited through local optometry practices. Participants were categorized into five age-matched groups; including those wearing no vision correction for driving (n = 50), bifocal spectacles (n = 54), progressive spectacles (n = 50), monovision contact lenses (n = 53), and multifocal contact lenses (n = 48).----- Results: Overall, ratings of satisfaction during daytime driving were relatively high for all correction types. However, multifocal contact lens wearers were significantly less satisfied with aspects of their vision during night-time than daytime driving, particularly regarding disturbances from glare and haloes. Progressive spectacle lens wearers noticed more distortion of peripheral vision, whereas bifocal spectacle wearers reported more difficulties with tasks requiring changes of focus and those who wore no optical correction for driving reported problems with intermediate and near tasks. Overall, satisfaction was significantly higher for progressive spectacles than bifocal spectacles for driving.----- Conclusions: Subjective visual experiences of different presbyopic vision corrections when driving vary depending on the vision tasks and lighting level. Eye-care practitioners should be aware of the driving-related difficulties experienced with each vision correction type and the need to select corrective types that match the driving needs of their patients.

Variation of the Stiles-Crawford effect with accommodation and myopia

Background: Mechanical forces either due to accommodation or myopia may stretch the retina and/or cause shear between the retina and choroid. This can be investigated by making use of the Stiles-Crawford effect (SCE), which is the phenomenon of light changing in apparent brightness as it enters through different positions in the pupil. The SCE can be measured by psychophysical and objective techniques, with the SCE parameters being directionality (rate of change across the pupil), and orientation (the location of peak sensitivity in the pupil). Aims: 1. To study the changes in foveal SCE with accommodation in emmetropes and myopes using a subjective (psychophysical) technique. 2. To develop and evaluate a quick objective technique of measuring the SCE using the multifocal electroretinogram. Methods: The SCE was measured in 6 young emmetropes and 6 young myopes for up to 8 D accommodation stimulus with a psychophysical technique and its variants. An objective technique using the multifocal electroretinogram was developed and evaluated with 5 emmetropes. Results: Using the psychophysical technique, the SCE directionality increased by similar amounts in both emmetropes and myopes as accommodation increased, with an increase of 15-20% with 6 D of accommodation. However, there were no significant orientation changes. Additional measurements showed that most of the change in the directionality was probably an artefact of optical factors such as higher-order aberrations and accommodative lag rather a true effect of accommodation. The multifocal technique demonstrated the presence of the SCE, but results were noisy and too variable to detect any changes in SCE directionality or orientation with accommodation. Conclusion: There is little true change in the SCE with accommodation responses up to 6 D in either emmetropes or myopes, although it is possible that substantial changes might occur at very high accommodation levels. The objective technique using the multifocal electroretinogram was quicker and less demanding for the subjects than the psychophysical technique, but as implemented in this thesis, it is not a reliable method of measuring the SCE.