Expand this Topic clickable element to expand a topic
Skip to content
Optica Publishing Group
Journal Home About Issues in Progress Current Issue All Issues Feature Issues

Comparison of optical myopia control interventions: effect on peripheral image quality and vision

Petros Papadogiannis, Charlie Börjeson, and Linda Lundström

Open Access Open Access

Abstract

This study compares the effects on peripheral vision and image quality of four myopia control interventions: a) Perifocal spectacles/ArtOptica, b) Stellest spectacles/Essilor), c) MiyoSmart spectacles/Hoya and d) MiSight contact lenses/CooperVision. Five subjects participated with habitual or no correction as reference. Three techniques were used: 1) Hartmann-Shack sensors for wavefront errors, 2) double-pass imaging system for point-spread-functions (PSF), and 3) peripheral acuity evaluation. The results show that multiple evaluation methods are needed to fully quantify the optical effects of these myopia control interventions. Perifocal was found to make the relative peripheral refraction (RPR) more myopic in all subjects and to interact with the natural optical errors of the eye, hence showing larger variations in the effect on peripheral vision. MiSight had a smaller effect on RPR, but large effect on peripheral vision. Stellest and MiyoSmart also showed small effects on RPR but had broader double-pass PSFs for all participants, indicating reduced retinal contrast. Reduction in peripheral retinal contrast might thereby play a role in slowing myopia progression even when the peripheral refraction does not turn more myopic.

Published by Optica Publishing Group under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Full Article  |  PDF Article
More Like This
Foveal and peripheral visual quality and accommodation with multifocal contact lenses

Petros Papadogiannis, Dmitry Romashchenko, Shrilekha Vedhakrishnan, Britta Persson, Anna Lindskoog Pettersson, Susana Marcos, and Linda Lundström
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 39(6) B39-B49 (2022)

Simultaneous measurements of foveal and peripheral aberrations with accommodation in myopic and emmetropic eyes

Dmitry Romashchenko, Petros Papadogiannis, Peter Unsbo, and Linda Lundström
Biomed. Opt. Express 12(12) 7422-7433 (2021)

Two-dimensional peripheral refraction in adults

Xiaoyun Xi, Jiangdong Hao, Zhenghua Lin, Sidi Wang, Zhikuan Yang, Weizhong Lan, and Pablo Artal
Biomed. Opt. Express 14(5) 2375-2385 (2023)

View More...

Data availability

Data underlying the results presented in this paper are not publicly available at this time but may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request.

Cited By

Optica participates in Crossref's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from Optica Publishing Group journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (7)
Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Designs of the four optical myopia control interventions that are reported in this study. A) is the Perifocal lens from ArtOptica, B) is the Stellest lens from Essilor, C) is the MiyoSmart lens from Hoya and D) is the MiSight contact lens from CooperVision.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Relative peripheral refraction (RPR) as calculated from simultaneous foveal and peripheral wavefront measurements in the 30° nasal visual field for five subjects with the different myopia control interventions compared to the reference case.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Peripheral astigmatism as Jackson cross-cylinder in 90/180 (J0) calculated from wavefront measurements in the 30° nasal visual field for five subjects with the different myopia control interventions compared to the reference case.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Peripheral point-spread-functions (PSFs) in the 30° nasal visual field for subject 1, 2, and 3 with the different interventions and measurement techniques, measured and calculated for a 3.5 mm pupil diameter. HSWS: Hartmann-Shack wavefront sensor (technique 1); DP: double-pass (technique 2). Each image is an average of three repetitions.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Peripheral through-focus double-pass point-spread-functions (PSFs) in the 30° nasal visual field for subject 2 during one repetition with each intervention, measured for a 3.5 mm pupil diameter. The defocus steps range from -7.95 D in the upper left corner of each panel to +5.95 D in the lower right. The change in defocus between each PSF is 0.1 D, each row therefore corresponds to 1.0 D change in defocus. The colored squares inscribe the 4.0 D region with best PSFs, which were located between -1.95 D and +1.95 D with the reference, Stellest, and MiyoSmart, but between -2.95 D and +0.95 D with Perifocal.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 6.
Fig. 6. Peripheral high contrast grating resolution acuity in the 30° nasal visual field for the five subjects and the different myopia control interventions. Circles indicate repetitions, black lines indicate means of the three repetitions. Lower values correspond to better acuity.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 7.
Fig. 7. Peripheral low contrast (10%) grating resolution acuity in the 20° nasal visual field for the two subjects and the different myopia control interventions. Circles indicate repetitions, black lines indicate means of the three repetitions. Lower values correspond to better acuity.

Download Full Size | PDF

Tables (2)

Tables Icon

Table 1. Differences in mean peripheral high contrast grating resolution acuity.a

View Table | View all tables in this article
Tables Icon

Table 2. Differences in mean peripheral low contrast (10%) grating resolution acuity.a

View Table | View all tables in this article
Select as filters
Select Topics Cancel
Top
       
© Copyright 2024 | Optica Publishing Group. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies.
Privacy | Terms of Use