Clifton M Schor1, Shrikant R Bharadwaj. 1. School of Optometry & Vision Science, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. schor@socrates.berkeley.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: When the aging lens is replaced with prosthetic accommodating intraocular lenses (IOLs), with effective viscoelasticities different from those of the natural lens, mismatches could arise between the neural control of accommodation and the biomechanical properties of the new lens. These mismatches could lead to either unstable oscillations or sluggishness of dynamic accommodation. Using computer simulations, we investigated whether optimal accommodative responses could be restored through recalibration of the neural control of accommodation. Using human experiments, we also investigated whether the accommodative system has the capacity for adaptive recalibration in response to changes in lens biomechanics. METHODS: Dynamic performance of two accommodating IOL prototypes was simulated for a 45-year-old accommodative system, before and after neural recalibration, using a dynamic model of accommodation. Accommodating IOL I, a prototype for an injectable accommodating IOL, was less stiff and less viscous than the natural 45-year-old lens. Accommodating IOL II, a prototype for a translating accommodating IOL, was less stiff and more viscous than the natural 45-year-old lens. Short-term adaptive recalibration of dynamic accommodation was stimulated using a double-step adaptation paradigm that optically induced changes in neuromuscular effort mimicking responses to changes in lens biomechanics. RESULTS: Model simulations indicate that the unstable oscillations or sluggishness of dynamic accommodation resulting from mismatches between neural control and lens biomechanics might be restored through neural recalibration. CONCLUSIONS: Empirical measures reveal that the accommodative system is capable of adaptive recalibration in response to optical loads that simulate effects of changing lens biomechanics.
PURPOSE: When the aging lens is replaced with prosthetic accommodating intraocular lenses (IOLs), with effective viscoelasticities different from those of the natural lens, mismatches could arise between the neural control of accommodation and the biomechanical properties of the new lens. These mismatches could lead to either unstable oscillations or sluggishness of dynamic accommodation. Using computer simulations, we investigated whether optimal accommodative responses could be restored through recalibration of the neural control of accommodation. Using human experiments, we also investigated whether the accommodative system has the capacity for adaptive recalibration in response to changes in lens biomechanics. METHODS: Dynamic performance of two accommodating IOL prototypes was simulated for a 45-year-old accommodative system, before and after neural recalibration, using a dynamic model of accommodation. Accommodating IOL I, a prototype for an injectable accommodating IOL, was less stiff and less viscous than the natural 45-year-old lens. Accommodating IOL II, a prototype for a translating accommodating IOL, was less stiff and more viscous than the natural 45-year-old lens. Short-term adaptive recalibration of dynamic accommodation was stimulated using a double-step adaptation paradigm that optically induced changes in neuromuscular effort mimicking responses to changes in lens biomechanics. RESULTS: Model simulations indicate that the unstable oscillations or sluggishness of dynamic accommodation resulting from mismatches between neural control and lens biomechanics might be restored through neural recalibration. CONCLUSIONS: Empirical measures reveal that the accommodative system is capable of adaptive recalibration in response to optical loads that simulate effects of changing lens biomechanics.
Authors: M Takagi; H Oyamada; H Abe; D S Zee; H Hasebe; A Miki; T Usui; S Hasegawa; T Bando Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Steven A Koopmans; Thom Terwee; Jan Barkhof; Henk J Haitjema; Aart C Kooijman Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.799