Local changes in eye growth induced by imposed local refractive error despite active accommodation.

We have tested whether defocus imposed on local retinal areas can produce local changes in eye growth, even if accommodation is available to clear part of the imposed defocus. Hemi-field lenses were attached to little leather hoods that were worn by young chickens from day 11-15 post-hatching. The lens segments defocused either the nasal or the temporal visual field, or covered the full field. We found that negative lenses (-7.5 D) were incompletely compensated in all three cases but caused significant myopia in the defocused parts of the visual field (differences to fellow eyes with normal vision: nasal visual field -3.13 +/- 1.56 D, P < 0.001; temporal visual field -4.02 +/- 1.38 D, P < 0.001; full field -3.82 +/- 2.48 D, P = 0.01). Myopia was not enhanced if the lenses covered the entire visual field. Positive lenses (+6.9 D) caused larger changes in refraction than negative lenses and, again, there was no significant difference in the amount of induced hyperopia in the nasal or temporal retina, or in the amount of hyperopia with full-field lenses (difference to fellow eyes with normal vision: nasal visual field +6.2 +/- 2.69 D, P < 0.001; temporal visual field +5.95 +/- 2.22 D, full field +7.22 +/- 2.44 D, P < 0.001). To compare the shapes of the excised eyes after lens treatment, we wrote a fully automated image processing program that traced their outlines in digitized video images. We found that the shapes of the eyes treated with positive lenses did scarcely differ from their fellow eyes with normal vision, indicating that hyperopia over this 4 day period was caused mostly by choroidal thickening. Full field negative lenses produced significant axial eye elongation; the effects of locally imposed defocus on eye shape were less conspicuous and were significant only in some areas. That local compensation of defocus was possible for both negative and positive lenses, suggests that the retina can recognize the sign of defocus without accommodation cues. Even more striking is that the presence of accommodation is apparently ignored since the drift in the plane of focus during accommodation does not disturb the compensation process. We re-analyze previous experimental results that argue for different mechanisms for deprivation myopia and lens-induced refractive errors. We propose that lens-induced refractive errors are compensated by similar retinal mechanisms as the ones proposed by Bartmann and Schaeffel [(1994). Vision Research, 34, pp. 873-876] to explain deprivation myopia. The proposed mechanisms can integrate with long time constants over the spatial frequency content in the retinal image while the viewing distances change, and control both choroidal thickening and scleral growth. However, it turns out that the compensation of imposed myopia cannot be explained if only one constant viewing is available. Apparently, there is more than a retinal blur detector to guide refractive development.