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.

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.

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.

Electromyographic analysis of the superior belly of the omohyoid muscle and anterior belly of the digastric muscle in tongue and head movements

The participation of the superior belly of the omohyoid muscle and anterior belly of the digastric muscle in tongue and head movements was studied eletromyographically in 20 normal young volunteers. A pair of monopolar electrodes was used in each muscle for simultaneous recording of their actions. The muscles act in the following tongue movements: protrusion, right and left lateral movements, placement of the tip of the tongue on soft and hard palates and on the floor of the mouth. The strongest levels of activity of the superior belly of the omohyoid muscle were observed in the placement of the tip of the tongue on the soft palate, coincidentally with a greater dislocation of hyoid bone. Both of the muscles studied did not participate in the head's kinesiology. (C) 1999 Elsevier B.V. Ltd. All rights reserved.

Evidence for a hypothalamothalamocortical circuit mediating pheromonal influences on eye and head movements.

A method for simultaneous iontophoretic injections of the anterograde tracer Phaseolus vulgaris leukoagglutinin and the retrograde tracer fluorogold was used to characterize in the rat a hypothalamothalamocortical pathway ending in a region thought to regulate attentional mechanisms by way of eye and head movements. The relevant medial hypothalamic nuclei receive pheromonal information from the amygdala and project to specific parts of the thalamic nucleus reuniens and anteromedial nucleus, which then project to a specific lateral part of the retrosplenial area (or medial visual cortex). This cortical area receives a convergent input from the lateral posterior thalamic nucleus and projects to the superior colliculus. Bidirectional connections with the hippocampal formation suggest that activity in this circuit is modified by previous experience. Striking parallels with basal ganglia circuitry are noted.

Physical and psychophysical analysis of progressive addition lens embodiments

The extent to which the surface parameters of Progressive Addition Lenses (PALs) affect successful patient tolerance was investigated. Several optico-physical evaluation techniques were employed, including a newly constructed surface reflection device which was shown to be of value for assessing semi-finished PAL blanks. Detailed physical analysis was undertaken using a computer-controlled focimeter and from these data, iso-cylindrical and mean spherical plots were produced for each PAL studied. Base curve power was shown to have little impact upon the distribution of PAL astigmatism. A power increase in reading addition primarily caused a lengthening and narrowing of the lens progression channel. Empirical measurements also indicated a marginal steepening of the progression power gradient with an increase in reading addition power. A sample of the PAL wearing population were studied using patient records and questionnaire analysis (90% were returned). This subjective analysis revealed the reading portion to be the most troublesome lens zone and showed that patients with high astigmatism (> 2.00D) adapt more readily to PALs than those with spherical or low cylindrical (2.00D) corrections. The psychophysical features of PALs were then investigated. Both grafting visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) were shown to be reduced with an increase in eccentricity from the central umbilical line. Two sample populations (N= 20) of successful and unsuccessful PAL wearers were assessed for differences in their visual performance and their adaptation to optically induced distortion. The possibility of dispensing errors being the cause of poor patient tolerance amongst the unsuccessful wearer group was investigated and discounted. The contrast sensitivity of the successful group was significantly greater than that of the unsuccessful group. No differences in adaptation to or detection of curvature distortion were evinced between these presbyopic groups.

Analysis of eye and head coordination in a visual peripheral recognition task

Coordinated eye and head movements simultaneously occur to scan the visual world for relevant targets. However, measuring both eye and head movements in experiments allowing natural head movements may be challenging. This paper provides an approach to study eye-head coordination: First, we demonstra- te the capabilities and limits of the eye-head tracking system used, and compare it to other technologies. Second, a beha- vioral task is introduced to invoke eye-head coordination. Third, a method is introduced to reconstruct signal loss in video- based oculography caused by cornea reflection artifacts in order to extend the tracking range. Finally, parameters of eye- head coordination are identified using EHCA (eye-head co- ordination analyzer), a MATLAB software which was developed to analyze eye-head shifts. To demonstrate the capabilities of the approach, a study with 11 healthy subjects was performed to investigate motion behavior. The approach presented here is discussed as an instrument to explore eye-head coordination, which may lead to further insights into attentional and motor symptoms of certain neurological or psychiatric diseases, e.g., schizophrenia.

Street crossing behavior in younger and older pedestrians: an eye- and head-tracking study

BACKGROUND: Crossing a street can be a very difficult task for older pedestrians. With increased age and potential cognitive decline, older people take the decision to cross a street primarily based on vehicles' distance, and not on their speed. Furthermore, older pedestrians tend to overestimate their own walking speed, and could not adapt it according to the traffic conditions. Pedestrians' behavior is often tested using virtual reality. Virtual reality presents the advantage of being safe, cost-effective, and allows using standardized test conditions. METHODS: This paper describes an observational study with older and younger adults. Street crossing behavior was investigated in 18 healthy, younger and 18 older subjects by using a virtual reality setting. The aim of the study was to measure behavioral data (such as eye and head movements) and to assess how the two age groups differ in terms of number of safe street crossings, virtual crashes, and missed street crossing opportunities. Street crossing behavior, eye and head movements, in older and younger subjects, were compared with non-parametric tests. RESULTS: The results showed that younger pedestrians behaved in a more secure manner while crossing a street, as compared to older people. The eye and head movements analysis revealed that older people looked more at the ground and less at the other side of the street to cross. CONCLUSIONS: The less secure behavior in street crossing found in older pedestrians could be explained by their reduced cognitive and visual abilities, which, in turn, resulted in difficulties in the decision-making process, especially under time pressure. Decisions to cross a street are based on the distance of the oncoming cars, rather than their speed, for both groups. Older pedestrians look more at their feet, probably because of their need of more time to plan precise stepping movement and, in turn, pay less attention to the traffic. This might help to set up guidelines for improving senior pedestrians' safety, in terms of speed limits, road design, and mixed physical-cognitive trainings.

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.

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.

Clinical performance of an innovative back surface multifocal contact lens in correcting presbyopia

Purpose: This prospective study was designed to subjectively and objectively evaluate the performance of an aspheric multifocal back surface rigid gas permeable (RGP) contact lens. The multifocal element of this lens design consisted of an aspheric optical zone that varied according to the patient's ametropia, corneal topography, and required reading addition.

Methods: We fit 28 presbyopic subjects with an aspheric multifocal back surface RGP contact lens (age range: 45 to 68 years). Reading additions ranged from +0.75 D to +2.50 D. Subjects were assessed initially and at 2, 6, and 12 weeks for ocular changes, visual performance, and subjective responses.

Results: We required 116 RGP lenses to achieve an acceptable fit and visual acuity in 28 subjects (55 eyes). At the final visit, the distance logMAR acuity with the multifocal contact lens (+0.12 +/-0.10) was not statistically different (t=-0.623, P= 0.5388) from spectacle acuity at the initial visit (+0.10 +/-0.12). The near logMAR acuity with the multifocal contact lens at the final visit (0.36 +/- 0.12) was not statistically different from that for near acuity with spectacles at the initial visit (0.33 +/- 0.13). No slit lamp signs worsened during the study. A reduction in myopia of 0.67 D was noted by the final visit. Spectacle blur was noted if the acuity at the initial refraction was compared to the acuity with the same refraction at the final visit (t= -3.287, P= 0.0028) but not when the refractive changes were incorporated (t= 1.058, P= 0.3127). All subjects rated the performance of the lenses very highly: comfort, 86%; distance acuity, 83%; near acuity, 73%; and stability of vision, 74%. Twenty-four subjects (86%) chose the multifocal contact lens as their preference.

Conclusion: We demonstrated that a multifocal design is able to provide acceptable distance and near correction for presbyopic patients. The aspheric geometry required can be optimized for a given patient by considering his/her degree of ametropia, as well as the corneal topography.

Power profiles of multifocal contact lenses and their interpretation

Purpose Many contact lens (CL) manufacturers produce simultaneous-image lenses in which power varies either smoothly or discontinuously with zonal radius. We present in vitro measurements of some recent CLs and discuss how power profiles might be approximated in terms of nominal distance corrections, near additions, and on-eye visual performance. Methods Fully hydrated soft, simultaneous-image CLs from four manufacturers (Air Optix AQUA, Alcon; PureVision multifocal, Bausch & Lomb; Acuvue OASYS for Presbyopia, Vistakon; Biofinity multifocal- ‘‘D’’ design, Cooper Vision) were measured with a Phase focus Lens Profiler (Phase Focus Ltd., Sheffield,UK) in a wet cell and powerswere corrected to powers in air. All lenses had zero labeled power for distance. Results Sagittal power profiles revealed that the ‘‘low’’ add PureVision and Air Optix lenses exhibit smooth (parabolic) profiles, corresponding to negative spherical aberration. The ‘‘mid’’ and ‘‘high’’ add PureVision and Air Optix lenses have biaspheric designs, leading to different rates of power change for the central and peripheral portions. All OASYS lenses display a series of concentric zones, separated by abrupt discontinuities; individual profiles can be constrained between two parabolically decreasing curves, each giving a valid description of the power changes over alternate annular zones. Biofinity lenses have constant power over the central circular region of radius 1.5 mm, followed by an annular zone where the power increases approximately linearly, the gradient increasing with the add power, and finally an outer zone showing a slow, linear increase in power with a gradient being almost independent of the add power. Conclusions The variation in power across the simultaneous-image lenses produces enhanced depth of focus. The throughfocusnature of the image, which influences the ‘‘best focus’’ (distance correction) and the reading addition, will vary with several factors, including lens centration, the wearer’s pupil diameter, and ocular aberrations, particularly spherical aberration; visual performance with some designs may show greater sensitivity to these factors.

Influences of luminance and accommodation stimuli on pupil size and pupil center location

PURPOSE. To investigate effects of luminance and accommodation stimuli on pupil size and pupil center location and their implications for progressive addition lens wear. METHODS. Participants were young and older adult groups (n=20, 22±2 years, age range 18-25 years; n=19, 49±4 years, 45-58 years). A wave aberrometer included a relay system to allow a 12.5°x11° background for the internal fixation target. Participants viewed the target under a matrix of conditions with luminance levels 0.01, 3.7, 120 and 6100 cd/m² and with accommodation stimuli up to 6 diopters in 2 diopter steps. Pupil sizes and their centers, relative to limbus centers, were determined from anterior eye images. RESULTS. With luminance increase, reduction in pupil size was accentuated by increase in accommodation stimulus in the young, but not in the older, group. As luminance increased, pupil center location altered. This was nasally in both groups with an average shift of approximately 0.12mm. Relative to the lowest stimulus condition, the mean of the maximum absolute pupil center shifts was 0.26±0.08mm for both groups with individual shifts up to 0.5mm, findings consistent with previous studies. There was no significant effect of accommodation on pupil center locations for either age group, or evidence that location was influenced by the combination of luminance and accommodation stimulus that resulted in any particular pupil size. CONCLUSIONS. Variations in luminance and accommodation influence pupil size, but only the former affects pupil center location significantly. Pupil center shifts are too small to be of concern in fitting progressive addition lenses.