Clinical evaluation of the Softec HD aberration-free aspheric intraocular lens

Purpose: To compare distance and near visual performance with a zero-aberration aspheric intraocular lens (IOL) (Softec HD, Lenstec, Inc. FL, USA) with that of an otherwise identical, but spherical IOL (Softec 1). Setting: Department of Ophthalmology, Solihull Hospital, West Midlands, United Kingdom. Methods: This prospective study comprised 37 patients with a Softec 1 spherical IOL implanted in one eye, who underwent phacoemulsification and received the Softec HD aspheric IOL in the fellow eye. One month post-operatively, unaided distance and near vision, residual refraction, best spectacle corrected distance and near visual acuity, reading speed, pseudoaccommodation and photopic contrast sensitivity were recorded. Wavefront analysis enabled comparison of higher order aberrations between the IOLs. Results: Prior to surgery, the Softec 1 and Softec HD eyes were not significantly different. Post-operatively, unaided vision, best spectacle corrected visual acuity and residual refraction were not significantly different between the eyes, nor were there significant differences observed between the measured wavefront aberrations. Once implanted, the range of focus was significantly better in the Softec HD IOL eye than the Softec 1 IOL eye and, although reading speed was equivalent to the Softec 1 eye, the print size at which this could be achieved was significantly smaller. Conclusions: Depth of field was significantly improved with the aspheric IOL compared with the spherical IOL, without any compromise in distance visual performance between the two IOLs.

Limits to tDCS effects in language:failures to modulate word production in healthy participants with frontal or temporal tDCS

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a method of non-invasive brain stimulation widely used to modulate cognitive functions. Recent studies, however, suggests that effects are unreliable, small and often non-significant at least when stimulation is applied in a single session to healthy individuals. We examined the effects of frontal and temporal lobe anodal tDCS on naming and reading tasks and considered possible interactions with linguistic activation and selection mechanisms as well possible interactions with item difficulty and participant individual variability. Across four separate experiments (N, Exp 1A = 18; 1B = 20; 1C = 18; 2 = 17), we failed to find any difference between real and sham stimulation. Moreover, we found no evidence of significant effects limited to particular conditions (i.e., those requiring suppression of semantic interference), to a subset of participants or to longer RTs. Our findings sound a cautionary note on using tDCS as a means to modulate cognitive performance. Consistent effects of tDCS may be difficult to demonstrate in healthy participants in reading and naming tasks, and be limited to cases of pathological neurophysiology and/or to the use of learning paradigms.