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.

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

Purpose: To investigate whether wearing different presbyopic refractive corrections alters the pattern of eye and head movements when searching for dynamic targets in driving-related traffic scenes. Methods: Eye and head movements of 20 presbyopes (mean age = 56.2 ± 5.7 years), who had no experience of wearing presbyopic corrections or were unadapted wearers were recorded using the faceLABTM eye and head tracker, while wearing five different corrections: single vision lenses (SV), progressive addition lenses (PALs), bifocal spectacles (BIF), monovision and multifocal contact lenses (MTF CLs) in random order (within-subjects comparison). Recorded traffic scenes of suburban roads and expressways with edited targets were viewed as dynamic stimuli. Results: The magnitude of eye and head movements was significantly greater for SV, BIF and PALs than monovision and MTF CLs (p < 0.001). In addition, BIF wear led to more eye movements than PAL wear (p = 0.017), while PAL wear resulted in greater head movements than SV wear (p = 0.018). The ratio of eye to head movement was smaller for PALs than all other groups (p < 0.001). The number of saccades made to fixate a target was significantly higher for BIF and PALs than monovision or MTF CLs (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Different presbyopic corrections can alter eye and head movement patterns. Wearing spectacles such as BIF and PALs produced relatively greater eye and head movements and saccades when viewing dynamic targets. The impact of these changes in eye and head movement patterns may have implications for driving performance under real world driving conditions.

Driving-related eye and head movements are changed by the type of presbyopic correction

Purpose: To investigate whether wearing different presbyopic vision corrections alters the pattern of eye and head movements when viewing dynamic driving-related traffic scenes. Methods: Participants included 20 presbyopes (mean age: 56±5.7 years) who had no experience of wearing presbyopic vision corrections (i.e. all were single vision wearers). Eye and head movements were recorded while wearing five different vision corrections: single vision lenses (SV), progressive addition spectacle lenses (PALs), bifocal spectacle lenses (BIF), monovision (MV) and multifocal contact lenses (MTF CL) in random order. Videotape recordings of traffic scenes of suburban roads and expressways (with edited targets) were presented as dynamic driving-related stimuli and digital numeric display panels included as near visual stimuli (simulating speedometer and radio). Eye and head movements were recorded using the faceLAB™ system and the accuracy of target identification was also recorded. Results: The magnitude of eye movements while viewing the driving-related traffic scenes was greater when wearing BIF and PALs than MV and MTF CL (p≤0.013). The magnitude of head movements was greater when wearing SV, BIF and PALs than MV and MTF CL (p<0.0001) and the number of saccades was significantly higher for BIF and PALs than MV (p≤0.043). Target recognition accuracy was poorer for all vision corrections 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), and PALs gave better performance than MTF CL (p=0.043). Conclusions: Different presbyopic vision corrections alter eye and head movement patterns. In particular, the larger magnitude of eye and head movements and greater number of saccades associated with the spectacle presbyopic corrections, may impact on driving performance.

The impact of presbyopic spectacles and contact lenses on driving performance

Presbyopia affects individuals from the age of 45 years onwards, resulting in difficulty in accurately focusing on near objects. There are many optical corrections available including spectacles or contact lenses that are designed to enable presbyopes to see clearly at both far and near distances. However, presbyopic vision corrections also disturb aspects of visual function under certain circumstances. The impact of these changes on activities of daily living such as driving are, however, poorly understood. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine which aspects of driving performance might be affected by wearing different types of presbyopic vision corrections. In order to achieve this aim, three experiments were undertaken. The first experiment involved administration of a questionnaire to compare the subjective driving difficulties experienced when wearing a range of common presbyopic contact lens and spectacle corrections. The questionnaire was developed and piloted, and included a series of items regarding difficulties experienced while driving under day and night-time conditions. Two hundred and fifty five presbyopic patients responded to the questionnaire and were categorised into five groups, including those wearing no vision correction for driving (n = 50), bifocal spectacles (BIF, n = 54), progressive addition lenses spectacles (PAL, n = 50), monovision (MV, n = 53) and multifocal contact lenses (MTF CL, n = 48). Overall, ratings of satisfaction during daytime driving were relatively high for all correction types. However, MV and MTF CL wearers were significantly less satisfied with aspects of their vision during night-time than daytime driving, particularly with regard to disturbances from glare and haloes. Progressive addition lens wearers noticed more distortion of peripheral vision, while BIF wearers reported more difficulties with tasks requiring changes in focus and those who wore no vision correction for driving reported problems with intermediate and near tasks. Overall, the mean level of satisfaction for daytime driving was quite high for all of the groups (over 80%), with the BIF wearers being the least satisfied with their vision for driving. Conversely, at night, MTF CL wearers expressed the least satisfaction. Research into eye and head movements has become increasingly of interest in driving research as it provides a means of understanding how the driver responds to visual stimuli in traffic. Previous studies have found that wearing PAL can affect eye and head movement performance resulting in slower eye movement velocities and longer times to stabilize the gaze for fixation. These changes in eye and head movement patterns may have implications for driving safety, given that the visual tasks for driving include a range of dynamic search tasks. Therefore, the second study was designed to investigate the influence of different presbyopic corrections on driving-related eye and head movements under standardized laboratory-based conditions. Twenty presbyopes (mean age: 56.1 ± 5.7 years) who had no experience of wearing presbyopic vision corrections, apart from single vision reading spectacles, were recruited. Each participant wore five different types of vision correction: single vision distance lenses (SV), PAL, BIF, MV and 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 while their eye and head movements were recorded using the faceLAB® eye and head tracking system. Digital numerical display panels were also included as near visual stimuli (simulating the visual displays of a vehicle speedometer and radio). The results demonstrated that 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. The path length of head movements was greater with SV, BIF and PAL than MV and MTF CL. 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, regardless of vision correction type. The third experiment aimed to investigate the real world driving performance of presbyopes while wearing different vision corrections measured on a closed-road circuit at night-time. Eye movements were recorded using the ASL Mobile Eye, eye tracking system (as the faceLAB® system proved to be impractical for use outside of the laboratory). Eleven participants (mean age: 57.25 ± 5.78 years) were fitted with four types of prescribed vision corrections (SV, PAL, MV and MTF CL). The measures of driving performance on the closed-road circuit included distance to sign recognition, near target recognition, peripheral light-emitting-diode (LED) recognition, low contrast road hazards recognition and avoidance, recognition of all the road signs, time to complete the course, and driving behaviours such as braking, accelerating, and cornering. The results demonstrated that driving performance at night was most affected by MTF CL compared to PAL, resulting in shorter distances to read signs, slower driving speeds, and longer times spent fixating road signs. Monovision resulted in worse performance in the task of distance to read a signs compared to SV and PAL. The SV condition resulted in significantly more errors made in interpreting information from in-vehicle devices, despite spending longer time fixating on these devices. Progressive addition lenses were ranked as the most preferred vision correction, while MTF CL were the least preferred vision correction for night-time driving. This thesis addressed the research question of how presbyopic vision corrections affect driving performance and the results of the three experiments demonstrated that the different types of presbyopic vision corrections (e.g. BIF, PAL, MV and MTF CL) can affect driving performance in different ways. Distance-related driving tasks showed reduced performance with MV and MTF CL, while tasks which involved viewing in-vehicle devices were significantly hampered by wearing SV corrections. Wearing spectacles such as SV, BIF and PAL induced greater eye and head movements in the simulated driving condition, however this did not directly translate to impaired performance on the closed- road circuit tasks. These findings are important for understanding the influence of presbyopic vision corrections on vision under real world driving conditions. They will also assist the eye care practitioner to understand and convey to patients the potential driving difficulties associated with wearing certain types of presbyopic vision corrections and accordingly to support them in the process of matching patients to optical corrections which meet their visual needs.

Do small-aperture presbyopic corrections influence the visual field?

Purpose To explore the effect of small-aperture optics, designed to aid presbyopes by increasing ocular depth-of-focus, on measurements of the visual field. Methods Simple theoretical and ray-tracing models were used to predict the impact of different designs of small-aperture contact lenses or corneal inlays on the proportion of light passing through natural pupils of various diameters as a function of the direction in the visual field. The left eyes of five healthy volunteers were tested using three afocal, hand-painted opaque soft contact lenses (www.davidthomas.com). Two were opaque over a 10 mm diameter but had central clear circular apertures of 1.5 and 3.0 mm in diameter. The third had an annular opaque zone with inner and outer diameters of 1.5 and 4.0 mm, approximately simulating the geometry of the KAMRA inlay (www.acufocus.com). A fourth, clear lens was used for comparison purposes. Visual fields along the horizontal meridian were evaluated up to 50° eccentricity with static automated perimetry (Medmont M700, stimulus Goldmann-size III; www.medmont.com). Results According to ray-tracing, the two lenses with the circular apertures were expected to reduce the relative transmittance of the pupil to zero at specific field angles (around 60° for the conditions of the experimental measurements). In contrast, the annular stop had no effect on the absolute field but relative transmittance was reduced over the central area of the field, the exact effects depending upon the natural pupil diameter. Experimental results broadly agreed with these theoretical expectations. With the 1.5 and 3.0 mm pupils, only minor losses in sensitivity (around 2 dB) in comparison with the clear-lens case occurred across the central 10° radius of field. Beyond this angle, sensitivity losses increased, to reach about 7 dB at the edge of the measured field (50°). The field results with the annular stop showed at most only a slight loss in sensitivity (≤3 dB) across the measured field. Conclusion The present theoretical and experimental results support earlier clinical findings that KAMRA-type annular stops, unlike circular artificial pupils, have only minor effects on measurements of the visual field.

Utility of short-term evaluation of presbyopic contact lens performance

Objectives: To establish if evaluations of multifocal contact lens performance conducted at dispensing are representative of behavior after a moderate adaptation period.

Methods: Eighty-eight presbyopic subjects, across four clinical sites, wore each of four multifocal soft contact lenses (ACUVUE BIFOCAL, Focus Progressives, Proclear Multifocal, and SofLens Multifocal) for 4 days of daily wear. Comprehensive performance assessments were conducted at dispensing and after 4 days wear and included the following objective metrics: LogMAR acuity (contrast, 90% and 10%; illumination, 250 and 10 cd/m2; distance, 6 m, 100 cm, and 40 cm), stereopsis (RANDOT), reading critical print size and maximum speed and range of clear vision at near. Subjective assessments were made, with 100-point numerical rating scales, of comfort, ghosting (distance, near), visual quality (distance, intermediate, and near), and the appearance of haloes. At two sites, subjects (n = 39) also rated visual fluctuation (distance, intermediate, and near), facial recognition, and overall satisfaction.

Results: Among the objective variables, significant differences (paired t test, P<0.05) between dispensing and 4 days were found only for range of clear vision at near (2.9 ± 2.0 cm; mean difference ± standard deviation) and high contrast near acuity in low illumination (-0.013 ± 0.011 LogMAR). With the exception of insertion comfort, all subjective variables showed significant decrements over the same period. Overall satisfaction declined by an average of 10.9 ± 5.1 points.

Conclusions: Early assessment is relatively unrepresentative of performance later on during multifocal contact lens wear. Acuity based measures of vision remain substantially unchanged over the medium term, apparently because these metrics are insensitive indicators of performance compared with subjective alternatives.

Managing the emerging presbyopic contact lens wearer

The article deals with a study that examined the performance of a new silicone hydrogel multifocal contact lens for emerging presbyopes compared to other forms of correction. Study participants were asked to wear a different lens design for a week at a time. They were divided into the asymptomatic group and the symptomatic group. Results of the study showed that 24 participants had no difficulties with near vision tasks. It also found similar ghosting between the multifocal and habitual corrections for the near tasks under low illumination.

Presbyopic LASIK using hybrid bi-aspheric micro-monovision ablation profile for presbyopic corneal treatments

Purpose: To evaluate distance and near image quality after hybrid bi-aspheric multifocal central presbyLASIK treatments. Design: Consecutive case series. Methods: Sixty-four eyes of 32 patients consecutively treated with central presbyLASIK were assessed. The mean age of the patients was 51 ± 3 years with a mean spherical equivalent refraction of-1.08 ± 2.62 diopters (D) and mean astigmatism of 0.52 ± 0.42 D. Monocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), corrected near visual acuity (CNVA), and distance corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) of nondominant eyes; binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA); uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA); distance corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA); and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) were assessed pre- and postoperatively. Subjective quality of vision and near vision was assessed using the 10-item Rasch-scaled Quality of Vision and Near Activity Visual Questionnaire, respectively. Results: At 1 year postoperatively, 93% of patients achieved 20/20 or better binocular UDVA; 90% and 97% of patients had J2 or better UNVA and UIVA, respectively; 7% lost 2 Snellen lines of CDVA; Strehl ratio reduced by ~-4% ± 14%. Defocus curves revealed a loss of half a Snellen line at best focus, with no change for intermediate vergence (-1.25 D) and a mean gain of 2 lines for near vergence (-3 D). Conclusions: Presbyopic treatment using a hybrid bi-aspheric micro-monovision ablation profile is safe and efficacious. The postoperative outcomes indicate improvements in binocular vision at far, intermediate, and near distances with improved contrast sensitivity. A 19% retreatment rate should be considered to increase satisfaction levels, besides a 3% reversal rate.

Randomized crossover trial of silicone hydrogel presbyopic contact lenses

PURPOSE: To assess the performance of four commercially available silicone hydrogel multifocal monthly contact lens designs against monovision. METHODS: A double-masked randomized crossover trial of Air Optix Aqua multifocal, PureVision 2 for Presbyopia, Acuvue OASYS for Presbyopia, Biofinity multifocal, and monovision with Biofinity contact lenses was conducted on 35 presbyopes (54.3 ± 6.2 years). After 4 weeks of wear, visual performance was quantified by high- and low-contrast visual acuity under photopic and mesopic conditions, reading speed, defocus curves, stereopsis, halometry, aberrometry, Near Activity Visual Questionnaire rating, and subjective quality of vision scoring. Bulbar, limbal, and palpebral hyperemia and corneal staining were graded to monitor the impact of each contact lens on ocular physiology. RESULTS: High-contrast photopic visual acuity (p = 0.102), reading speed (F = 1.082, p = 0.368), and aberrometry (F = 0.855, p = 0.493) were not significantly different between presbyopic lens options. Defocus curve profiles (p <0.001), stereopsis (p <0.001), halometry (F = 4.101, p = 0.004), Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (F = 3.730, p = 0.007), quality of vision (p = 0.002), bulbar hyperemia (p = 0.020), and palpebral hyperemia (p = 0.012) differed significantly between lens types, with the Biofinity multifocal lens design principal (center-distance lens was fitted to the dominant eye and a center-near lens to the nondominant eye) typically outperforming the other lenses. CONCLUSIONS: Although ocular aberration variation between individuals largely masks the differences in optics between current multifocal contact lens designs, certain design strategies can outperform monovision, even in early presbyopes.

Investigating the utility of clinical assessments to predict success with presbyopic contact lens correction

PURPOSE: To determine the utility of a range of clinical and non-clinical indicators to aid the initial selection of the optimum presbyopic contact lens. In addition, to assess whether lens preference was influenced by the visual performance compared to the other designs trialled (intra-subject) or compared to participants who preferred other designs (inter-subject). METHODS: A double-masked randomised crossover trial of Air Optix Aqua multifocal, PureVision 2 for Presbyopia, Acuvue OASYS for Presbyopia, Biofinity multifocal and monovision was conducted on 35 presbyopes (54.3±6.2years). Participant lifestyle, personality, pupil characteristics and aberrometry were assessed prior to lens fitting. After 4 weeks of wear, high and low contrast visual acuity (VA) under photopic and mesopic conditions, reading speed, Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) rating, subjective quality-of-vision scoring, defocus curves, stereopsis, halometry, aberrometry and ocular physiology were quantified. RESULTS: After trialling all the lenses, preference was mixed (n=12 Biofinity, n=10 monovision, n=7 Purevision, n=4 Air Optix Aqua, n=2 Oasys). Lens preference was not dependent on personality (F=1.182, p=0.323) or the hours spent working at near (p=0.535) or intermediate (p=0.759) distances. No intersubject or strong intrasubject relationships emerged between lens preference and reading speed, NAVQ rating, halo size, aberrometry or ocular physiology (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Participant lifestyle and personality, ocular optics, contact lens visual performance and ocular physiology provided poor indicators of the preferred lens type after 4 weeks of wear. This is confounded by the wide range of task visual demands of presbyopes and the limited optical differences between current multifocal contact lens designs.