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.

Accommodative response to electrical stimulation of the sclera of peripheral cornea in cats and porcines

Purpose: We have reported that the changes in the accommodative response to electrical stimulation of the branches of the ciliary nerves in cats. (Miyagawa et al, PLoS One, 2014). We have also reported that no robust accommodative responses to the electrical stimulations of the sclera of peripheral cornea (SSPC) were observed in enucleated porcine eyes (Mihashi et al, VPOptics, 2014). In this study, accommodative responses to SSPC stimulation in cats and porcines were investigated. Methods: Two eyes of two cats under anesthesia and after they were sacrificed were studied. Three enucleated porcine eyes obtained from a local slaughterhouse were also studied. Trains of biphasic pulses (current, 3 mA; duration, 2 ms/phase; frequency, 40 Hz) were applied using a tungsten electrode (0.3mm diameter) from several orientations. Wavefront sensing with a compact wavefront aberrometer (Uday et al J Cataract Refract Surg, 2013) were performed before and 4 s (cat) and 10 s (pig) after the stimulations and wavefront aberrations including spherical errors were analyzed over a 4-mm pupil area. Results: In the first cat under anesthesia, at three out of seven stimulus positions, 0.2 D hyperopic accommodative responses were observed and in two orientations, myopic responses were observed. For the other cat, weak accommodative responses including astigmatic changes were observed. In the sacrificed condition of the second cat, 0.1 D myopic response was observed for one stimulus orientation and the smaller responses were observed at six out of eight stimulus positions. No accommodative responses were elicited for the enucleated porcine eyes. Conclusions: In the anesthetized cats, electrical stimulation of the SSPC induced accommodative responses; the responses were unstable and weaker than the responses by the ciliary nerve stimulations we observed in our previous study. Small accommodative responses were observed after one of two cats had been sacrificed, but no accommodative responses were detected in the enucleated porcine eyes. Further studies are needed to confirm difference in the accommodation functions in the two species.