PURPOSE: To prospectively examine whether using the visual image quality metric, visual Strehl (VSX), to optimise objective refraction from wavefront error measurements can provide equivalent or better visual performance than subjective refraction and which refraction is preferred in free viewing. METHODS:Subjective refractions and wavefront aberrations were measured on 40 visually-normal eyes of 20 subjects, through natural and dilated pupils. For each eye a sphere, cylinder, and axis prescription was also objectively determined that optimised visual image quality (VSX) for the measured wavefront error. High contrast (HC) and low contrast (LC) logMAR visual acuity (VA) and short-term monocular distance vision preference were recorded and compared between the VSX-objective and subjective prescriptions both undilated and dilated. RESULTS: For 36 myopic eyes, clinically equivalent (and not statistically different) HC VA was provided with both the objective and subjective refractions (undilated mean ± S.D. was -0.06 ± 0.04 with both refractions; dilated was -0.05 ± 0.04 with the objective, and -0.05 ± 0.05 with the subjective refraction). LC logMAR VA provided by the objective refraction was also clinically equivalent and not statistically different to that provided by the subjective refraction through both natural and dilated pupils for myopic eyes. In free viewing the objective prescription was preferred over the subjective by 72% of myopic eyes when not dilated. For four habitually undercorrected high hyperopic eyes, the VSX-objective refraction was more positive in spherical power and VA poorer than with the subjective refraction. CONCLUSIONS: A method of simultaneously optimising sphere, cylinder, and axis from wavefront error measurements, using the visual image quality metric VSX, is described. In myopic subjects, visual performance, as measured by HC and LC VA, with this VSX-objective refraction was found equivalent to that provided by subjective refraction, and was typically preferred over subjective refraction. Subjective refraction was preferred by habitually undercorrected hyperopic eyes.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To prospectively examine whether using the visual image quality metric, visual Strehl (VSX), to optimise objective refraction from wavefront error measurements can provide equivalent or better visual performance than subjective refraction and which refraction is preferred in free viewing. METHODS: Subjective refractions and wavefront aberrations were measured on 40 visually-normal eyes of 20 subjects, through natural and dilated pupils. For each eye a sphere, cylinder, and axis prescription was also objectively determined that optimised visual image quality (VSX) for the measured wavefront error. High contrast (HC) and low contrast (LC) logMAR visual acuity (VA) and short-term monocular distance vision preference were recorded and compared between the VSX-objective and subjective prescriptions both undilated and dilated. RESULTS: For 36 myopic eyes, clinically equivalent (and not statistically different) HC VA was provided with both the objective and subjective refractions (undilated mean ± S.D. was -0.06 ± 0.04 with both refractions; dilated was -0.05 ± 0.04 with the objective, and -0.05 ± 0.05 with the subjective refraction). LC logMAR VA provided by the objective refraction was also clinically equivalent and not statistically different to that provided by the subjective refraction through both natural and dilated pupils for myopic eyes. In free viewing the objective prescription was preferred over the subjective by 72% of myopic eyes when not dilated. For four habitually undercorrected high hyperopic eyes, the VSX-objective refraction was more positive in spherical power and VA poorer than with the subjective refraction. CONCLUSIONS: A method of simultaneously optimising sphere, cylinder, and axis from wavefront error measurements, using the visual image quality metric VSX, is described. In myopic subjects, visual performance, as measured by HC and LC VA, with this VSX-objective refraction was found equivalent to that provided by subjective refraction, and was typically preferred over subjective refraction. Subjective refraction was preferred by habitually undercorrected hyperopic eyes.
Authors: Gareth D Hastings; Raymond A Applegate; Lan Chi Nguyen; Matthew J Kauffman; Roxana T Hemmati; Jason D Marsack Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Gareth D Hastings; Raymond A Applegate; Alexander W Schill; Chuan Hu; Daniel R Coates; Jason D Marsack Journal: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Jos J Rozema; Gareth D Hastings; Marta Jiménez-García; Carina Koppen; Raymond A Applegate Journal: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Date: 2022-09-16 Impact factor: 3.992
Authors: Gareth D Hastings; Jason D Marsack; Larry N Thibos; Raymond A Applegate Journal: J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Ayeswarya Ravikumar; Julia S Benoit; Jason D Marsack; Heather A Anderson Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Gareth D Hastings; Alexander W Schill; Chuan Hu; Daniel R Coates; Raymond A Applegate; Jason D Marsack Journal: Vision Res Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 1.984
Authors: Julia S Benoit; Ayeswarya Ravikumar; Jason D Marsack; Heather A Anderson Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Gareth D Hastings; Julianna Z Zanayed; Lan Chi Nguyen; Raymond A Applegate; Jason D Marsack Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 2.106
Authors: Heather A Anderson; Julia S Benoit; Jason D Marsack; Ruth E Manny; Ayeswarya Ravikumar; Karen D Fern; Kelsey R Trast Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 2.106