PURPOSE: Eccentric photorefraction and Purkinje image tracking are used to estimate refractive state and eye position simultaneously. Beyond vision screening, they provide insight into typical and atypical visual development. Systematic analysis of the effect of refractive error and spectacles on photorefraction data is needed to gauge the accuracy and precision of the technique. METHODS: Simulation of two-dimensional, double-pass eccentric photorefraction was performed (Zemax). The inward pass included appropriate light sources, lenses and a single surface pupil plane eye model to create an extended retinal image that served as the source for the outward pass. Refractive state, as computed from the luminance gradient in the image of the pupil captured by the model's camera, was evaluated for a range of refractive errors (-15D to +15D), pupil sizes (3 mm to 7 mm) and two sets of higher-order monochromatic aberrations. Instrument calibration was simulated using -8D to +8D trial lenses at the spectacle plane for: (1) vertex distances from 3 mm to 23 mm, (2) uncorrected and corrected hyperopic refractive errors of +4D and +7D, and (3) uncorrected and corrected astigmatism of 4D at four different axes. Empirical calibration of a commercial photorefractor was also compared with a wavefront aberrometer for human eyes. RESULTS: The pupil luminance gradient varied linearly with refractive state for defocus less than approximately 4D (5 mm pupil). For larger errors, the gradient magnitude saturated and then reduced, leading to under-estimation of refractive state. Additional inaccuracy (up to 1D for 8D of defocus) resulted from spectacle magnification in the pupil image, which would reduce precision in situations where vertex distance is variable. The empirical calibration revealed a constant offset between the two clinical instruments. CONCLUSIONS: Computational modelling demonstrates the principles and limitations of photorefraction to help users avoid potential measurement errors. Factors that could cause clinically significant errors in photorefraction estimates include high refractive error, vertex distance and magnification effects of a spectacle lens, increased higher-order monochromatic aberrations, and changes in primary spherical aberration with accommodation. The impact of these errors increases with increasing defocus.
PURPOSE: Eccentric photorefraction and Purkinje image tracking are used to estimate refractive state and eye position simultaneously. Beyond vision screening, they provide insight into typical and atypical visual development. Systematic analysis of the effect of refractive error and spectacles on photorefraction data is needed to gauge the accuracy and precision of the technique. METHODS: Simulation of two-dimensional, double-pass eccentric photorefraction was performed (Zemax). The inward pass included appropriate light sources, lenses and a single surface pupil plane eye model to create an extended retinal image that served as the source for the outward pass. Refractive state, as computed from the luminance gradient in the image of the pupil captured by the model's camera, was evaluated for a range of refractive errors (-15D to +15D), pupil sizes (3 mm to 7 mm) and two sets of higher-order monochromatic aberrations. Instrument calibration was simulated using -8D to +8D trial lenses at the spectacle plane for: (1) vertex distances from 3 mm to 23 mm, (2) uncorrected and corrected hyperopic refractive errors of +4D and +7D, and (3) uncorrected and corrected astigmatism of 4D at four different axes. Empirical calibration of a commercial photorefractor was also compared with a wavefront aberrometer for human eyes. RESULTS: The pupil luminance gradient varied linearly with refractive state for defocus less than approximately 4D (5 mm pupil). For larger errors, the gradient magnitude saturated and then reduced, leading to under-estimation of refractive state. Additional inaccuracy (up to 1D for 8D of defocus) resulted from spectacle magnification in the pupil image, which would reduce precision in situations where vertex distance is variable. The empirical calibration revealed a constant offset between the two clinical instruments. CONCLUSIONS: Computational modelling demonstrates the principles and limitations of photorefraction to help users avoid potential measurement errors. Factors that could cause clinically significant errors in photorefraction estimates include high refractive error, vertex distance and magnification effects of a spectacle lens, increased higher-order monochromatic aberrations, and changes in primary spherical aberration with accommodation. The impact of these errors increases with increasing defocus.
Authors: Norberto López-Gil; Vicente Fernández-Sánchez; Richard Legras; Robert Montés-Micó; Francisco Lara; Jean Luc Nguyen-Khoa Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Maureen G Maguire; Gui-Shuang Ying; Elise B Ciner; Marjean Taylor Kulp; T Rowan Candy; Bruce Moore Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Marjean Taylor Kulp; Elise Ciner; Gui-Shuang Ying; T Rowan Candy; Bruce D Moore; Deborah Orel-Bixler Journal: Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) Date: 2022-01-18