Visual acuity measures do not reliably detect childhood refractive error - an epidemiological study

Purpose To investigate the utility of uncorrected visual acuity measures in screening for refractive error in white school children aged 6-7-years and 12-13-years. Methods The Northern Ireland Childhood Errors of Refraction (NICER) study used a stratified random cluster design to recruit children from schools in Northern Ireland. Detailed eye examinations included assessment of logMAR visual acuity and cycloplegic autorefraction. Spherical equivalent refractive data from the right eye were used to classify significant refractive error as myopia of at least 1DS, hyperopia as greater than +3.50DS and astigmatism as greater than 1.50DC, whether it occurred in isolation or in association with myopia or hyperopia. Results Results are presented from 661 white 12-13-year-old and 392 white 6-7-year-old school-children. Using a cut-off of uncorrected visual acuity poorer than 0.20 logMAR to detect significant refractive error gave a sensitivity of 50% and specificity of 92% in 6-7-year-olds and 73% and 93% respectively in 12-13-year-olds. In 12-13-year-old children a cut-off of poorer than 0.20 logMAR had a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 91% in detecting myopia and a sensitivity of 41% and a specificity of 84% in detecting hyperopia. Conclusions Vision screening using logMAR acuity can reliably detect myopia, but not hyperopia or astigmatism in school-age children. Providers of vision screening programs should be cognisant that where detection of uncorrected hyperopic and/or astigmatic refractive error is an aspiration, current UK protocols will not effectively deliver.

Evaluation of the measurement of refractive error by the PowerRefractor:a remote, continuous and binocular measurement system of oculomotor function

Background/aim: The technique of photoretinoscopy is unique in being able to measure the dynamics of the oculomotor system (ocular accommodation, vergence, and pupil size) remotely (working distance typically 1 metre) and objectively in both eyes simultaneously. The aim af this study was to evaluate clinically the measurement of refractive error by a recent commercial photoretinoscopic device, the PowerRefractor (PlusOptiX, Germany). Method: The validity and repeatability of the PowerRefractor was compared to: subjective (non-cycloplegic) refraction on 100 adult subjects (mean age 23.8 (SD 5.7) years) and objective autarefractian (Shin-Nippon SRW-5000, Japan) on 150 subjects (20.1 (4.2) years). Repeatability was assessed by examining the differences between autorefractor readings taken from each eye and by re-measuring the objective prescription of 100 eyes at a subsequent session. Results: On average the PowerRefractor prescription was not significantly different from the subjective refraction, although quite variable (difference -0.05 (0.63) D, p = 0.41) and more negative than the SRW-5000 prescription (by -0.20 (0.72) D, p<0.001). There was no significant bias in the accuracy of the instrument with regard to the type or magnitude of refractive error. The PowerRefractor was found to be repeatable over the prescription range of -8.75D to +4.00D (mean spherical equivalent) examined. Conclusion: The PowerRefractor is a useful objective screening instrument and because of its remote and rapid measurement of both eyes simultaneously is able to assess the oculomotor response in a variety of unrestricted viewing conditions and patient types.

Is pupil diameter influenced by refractive error?

Purpose: To investigate the relationship between pupil diameter and refractive error and how refractive correction, target luminance, and accommodation modulate this relationship. Methods: Sixty emmetropic, myopic, and hyperopic subjects (age range, 18 to 35 years) viewed an illuminated target (luminance: 10, 100, 200, 400, 1000, 2000, and 4100 cd/m2) within a Badal optical system, at 0 diopters (D) and −3 D vergence, with and without refractive correction. Refractive error was corrected using daily disposable contact lenses. Pupil diameter and accommodation were recorded continuously using a commercially available photorefractor. Results: No significant difference in pupil diameter was found between the refractive groups at 0 D or −3 D target vergence, in the corrected or uncorrected conditions. As expected, pupil diameter decreased with increasing luminance. Target vergence had no significant influence on pupil diameter. In the corrected condition, at 0 D target vergence, the accommodation response was similar in all refractive groups. At −3 D target vergence, the emmetropic and myopic groups accommodated significantly more than the hyperopic group at all luminance levels. There was no correlation between accommodation response and pupil diameter or refractive error in any refractive group. In the uncorrected condition, the accommodation response was significantly greater in the hyperopic group than in the myopic group at all luminance levels, particularly for near viewing. In the hyperopic group, the accommodation response was significantly correlated with refractive error but not pupil diameter. In the myopic group, accommodation response level was not correlated with refractive error or pupil diameter. Conclusions: Refractive error has no influence on pupil diameter, irrespective of refractive correction or accommodative demand. This suggests that the pupil is controlled by the pupillary light reflex and is not driven by retinal blur.

Two-B or not two-B? Design patterns for hybrid metaheuristics

Real world search problems, characterised by nonlinearity, noise and multidimensionality, are often best solved by hybrid algorithms. Techniques embodying different necessary features are triggered at specific iterations, in response to the current state of the problem space. In the existing literature, this alternation is managed either statically (through pre-programmed policies) or dynamically, at the cost of high coupling with algorithm inner representation. We extract two design patterns for hybrid metaheuristic search algorithms, the All-Seeing Eye and the Commentator patterns, which we argue should be replaced by the more flexible and loosely coupled Simple Black Box (Two-B) and Utility-based Black Box (Three-B) patterns that we propose here. We recommend the Two-B pattern for purely fitness based hybridisations and the Three-B pattern for more generic search quality evaluation based hybridisations.