Assessment of Just-Noticeable Differences for Refractive Errors and Spherical Aberration Using Visual Simulation

Purpose. The aim of this study was to evaluate the threshold levels of aberration change that a typical reference eye is able to detect. Methods. The method involved simulation of the foveal vision of a typical eye in polychromatic light through optics affected by different levels of the various chosen monochromatic aberrations. The reference eye had the following monochromatic wavefront characteristics based on the aberrations of a population of young adults: no spherical defocus, astigmatism −0.37 D oriented at 0°, coma −0.17 D/mm oriented at 270°, and spherical aberration −0.12 D/mm2. Average amounts of longitudinal and transverse chromatic aberration were assumed, and allowance was made for the Stiles-Crawford effect. The pupil diameter of the simulated eye was kept fixed at 6 mm. Three observers each compared, 100 times, a simulated image as seen through the standard reference eye with a variant “aberrated” image. The varying parameter was the value of a chosen additional aberration affecting the variant image in the reference eye. The test was repeated for varying amounts of spherical defocus, astigmatic defocus, and spherical aberration. For each of these aberrations and each observer, the discrimination probability as a function of the aberration level in the variant image was determined. The just-noticeable difference in aberration (JNDA) was derived from each discrimination curve as the difference between the aberrations corresponding to discrimination probabilities of 75% and 25%. The JNDA values obtained were expressed in the form of root mean square (RMS) wavefront error thresholds. Results. It was found that 0.04 &mgr;m of RMS aberration should be considered as the threshold of just-noticeable image change, in good agreement with the Maréchal criterion. Conclusions. The results imply that in normal viewing conditions (e.g., a 3-mm pupil size), optical corrections should be in the range of ±0.15 D in sphere and cylinder from the target prescription if perceptible change in the quality of the perceived images is to be avoided. The design of conventional soft contact lenses of high negative power or positive power should aim to produce −0.07 D/mm2 of spherical aberration, with a tolerated interval between −0.15 to +0.01 D/mm2 for a 6-mm pupil size.

[1]  M. K. Giles Aberration tolerances for visual optical systems. , 1977, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[2]  Monson H. Hayes,et al.  Statistical Digital Signal Processing and Modeling , 1996 .

[3]  A. Bradley,et al.  The chromatic eye: a new reduced-eye model of ocular chromatic aberration in humans. , 1992, Applied optics.

[4]  A. Bradley,et al.  Relationship between Refractive Error and Monochromatic Aberrations of the Eye , 2003, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[5]  E Peli,et al.  Appearance of images through a multifocal intraocular lens. , 2001, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[6]  Edwin J Sarver,et al.  Visual Acuity as a Function of Zernike Mode and Level of Root Mean Square Error , 2003, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[7]  D A Atchison,et al.  Subjective Depth-of-Focus of the Eye , 1997, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[8]  Campbell Fw A method for measuring the depth of field of the human eye. , 1954 .

[9]  A. Guirao,et al.  A Method to Predict Refractive Errors from Wave Aberration Data , 2003, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[10]  K. Lyons Effect of instrumental spherical aberration on visual image quality , 1996 .

[11]  P Mouroulis,et al.  Visual instrument image quality metrics and the effects of coma and astigmatism. , 1992, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[12]  G J Burton,et al.  Effects of wavefront aberration on visual instrument performance, and a consequential test technique. , 1987, Applied optics.

[13]  F. Campbell,et al.  Optical quality of the human eye , 1966, The Journal of physiology.

[14]  W N Charman,et al.  The prospects for super‐acuity: limits to visual performance after correction of monochromatic ocular aberration , 2003, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[15]  D. G. Green,et al.  Optical and retinal factors affecting visual resolution. , 1965, The Journal of physiology.

[16]  G. J. Burton,et al.  Effects of the Seidel aberrations on visual target discrimination. , 1984, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[17]  W. Charman,et al.  A Method for Simulation of Foveal Vision During Wear of Corrective Lenses , 2004, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[18]  W N Charman,et al.  Optical Aspects of Tolerances to Uncorrected Ocular Astigmatism , 1993, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[19]  L N Thibos,et al.  Statistical distribution of foveal transverse chromatic aberration, pupil centration, and angle psi in a population of young adult eyes. , 1995, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[20]  N Chateau,et al.  Influence of myopia and aging on the optimal spherical aberration of soft contact lenses. , 1998, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[21]  F. W. Campbell,et al.  Effect of Focus on the Visual Response to a Sinusoidally Modulated Spatial Stimulus , 1965 .

[22]  P. Mouroulis On the Correction of Astigmatism and Field Curvature in Telescopic Systems , 1982 .

[23]  R A Applegate,et al.  Parametric representation of Stiles-Crawford functions: normal variation of peak location and directionality. , 1993, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.