PURPOSE: To study the impact on the subjective depth of field of 4th-order spherical aberration and its combination with 6th-order spherical aberration and analyze the accuracy of image-quality metrics in predicting the impact. SETTING: Laboratoire Aimé Cotton, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université Paris-Sud, Orsay, France. DESIGN: Case series. METHODS: Subjective depth of field was defined as the range of defocus at which the target (3 high-contrast letters at 20/50) was perceived acceptable. Depth of field was measured using 0.18 diopter (D) steps in young subjects with the addition of the following spherical aberration values: ±0.3 μm and ±0.6 μm 4th-order spherical aberration with 3.0 mm and 6.0 mm pupils and ±0.3 μm 4th-order spherical aberration with ±0.1 μm 6th-order spherical aberration for 6.0 mm pupils. RESULTS: The addition of ±0.3 and ±0.6 μm 4th-order spherical aberration increased depth of field by 30% and 45%, respectively. The combination of 4th-order spherical aberration and 6th-order spherical aberration of opposite signs increased depth of field more than 4th-order spherical aberration alone (ie, 63%), while the combination of 4th-order spherical aberration and 6th-order spherical aberration of the same signs did not (ie, 24%). Whereas the midpoint of the depth of field could be predicted by image-quality metrics, none was found a good predictor of objectionable depth of field. CONCLUSION: Subjective depth of field increased when 4th-order spherical aberration and 6th-order spherical aberration of opposite signs were added but could not be predicted with image-quality metrics.
PURPOSE: To study the impact on the subjective depth of field of 4th-order spherical aberration and its combination with 6th-order spherical aberration and analyze the accuracy of image-quality metrics in predicting the impact. SETTING: Laboratoire Aimé Cotton, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université Paris-Sud, Orsay, France. DESIGN: Case series. METHODS: Subjective depth of field was defined as the range of defocus at which the target (3 high-contrast letters at 20/50) was perceived acceptable. Depth of field was measured using 0.18 diopter (D) steps in young subjects with the addition of the following spherical aberration values: ±0.3 μm and ±0.6 μm 4th-order spherical aberration with 3.0 mm and 6.0 mm pupils and ±0.3 μm 4th-order spherical aberration with ±0.1 μm 6th-order spherical aberration for 6.0 mm pupils. RESULTS: The addition of ±0.3 and ±0.6 μm 4th-order spherical aberration increased depth of field by 30% and 45%, respectively. The combination of 4th-order spherical aberration and 6th-order spherical aberration of opposite signs increased depth of field more than 4th-order spherical aberration alone (ie, 63%), while the combination of 4th-order spherical aberration and 6th-order spherical aberration of the same signs did not (ie, 24%). Whereas the midpoint of the depth of field could be predicted by image-quality metrics, none was found a good predictor of objectionable depth of field. CONCLUSION: Subjective depth of field increased when 4th-order spherical aberration and 6th-order spherical aberration of opposite signs were added but could not be predicted with image-quality metrics.
Authors: Antonio J Del Águila-Carrasco; Philip B Kruger; Francisco Lara; Norberto López-Gil Journal: Clin Exp Optom Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 2.742
Authors: Susana Marcos; John S Werner; Stephen A Burns; William H Merigan; Pablo Artal; David A Atchison; Karen M Hampson; Richard Legras; Linda Lundstrom; Geungyoung Yoon; Joseph Carroll; Stacey S Choi; Nathan Doble; Adam M Dubis; Alfredo Dubra; Ann Elsner; Ravi Jonnal; Donald T Miller; Michel Paques; Hannah E Smithson; Laura K Young; Yuhua Zhang; Melanie Campbell; Jennifer Hunter; Andrew Metha; Grazyna Palczewska; Jesse Schallek; Lawrence C Sincich Journal: Vision Res Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Ravi C Bakaraju; Daniel Tilia; Jennifer Sha; Jennie Diec; Jiyoon Chung; Danny Kho; Shona Delaney; Anna Munro; Varghese Thomas Journal: J Optom Date: 2017-06-12
Authors: Paula Bernal-Molina; Iván Marín-Franch; Antonio J Del Águila-Carrasco; Jose J Esteve-Taboada; Norberto López-Gil; Philip B Kruger; Robert Montés-Micó Journal: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 3.117