Vision with different presbyopia corrections simulated with a portable binocular visual simulator

Presbyopes can choose today among different corrections to provide them with functional vision at far and near, and the outcomes and patient satisfaction depend on the selection. In this study, we present a binocular and portable vision simulator, based on temporal multiplexing of two synchronized tunable lenses allowing see-through and programmable visual simulations of presbyopic corrections. Seventeen binocular corrections were tested: 3 Monofocal (Far, Intermediate, Near), 4 Simultaneous Vision (bifocal, trifocal), 2 Monovision (far and near in either eye) and 8 Modified Monovision corrections (Simultaneous vision in one eye, Monofocal in the other eye). Perceived visual quality was assessed through the simulated corrections in 8 cyclopleged subjects who viewed a composite realistic visual scene with high contrast letters and a landscape at far (4 m) and a high contrast text at intermediate (66 cm) and near (33 cm) distances. Perceptual scores were obtained on a scale of 0 to 5 (low to high perceived quality). Perceptual preference was assessed by judging 36 random image pairs (6 repetitions) viewed through 9 binocular presbyopic corrections using two-interval forced choice procedures. The average score, across far and near distances, was the highest for Monovision (4.4±0.3), followed by Modified Monovision (3.4±0.1), Simultaneous Vision (3.0±0.1) and Monofocal corrections (2.9±0.2). However, the mean difference between far and near was lower for Simultaneous Vision and Monovision (0.4±0.1 PS) than Modified Monovision (1.8±0.7) or monofocal corrections (3.3±1.5). A strong significant correlation was found between the perceptual scores and the percentages of energy in focus, for each correction and distance (R = 0.64, p<0.0001). Multivariate ANOVA revealed significant influence of observation distances (p<10–9) and patients (p = 0.01) on Perceptual Score. In conclusion, we have developed a binocular portable vision simulator that can simulate rapidly and non-invasively different combinations of presbyopic corrections. This tool has applications in systematic clinical evaluation of presbyopia corrections.

[1]  Geunyoung Yoon,et al.  Objective evaluation of through‐focus optical performance of presbyopia‐correcting intraocular lenses using an optical bench system , 2011, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[2]  Carlos Dorronsoro,et al.  Perceived image quality with simulated segmented bifocal corrections. , 2016, Biomedical optics express.

[3]  Susana Marcos,et al.  Testing vision with angular and radial multifocal designs using Adaptive Optics , 2017, Vision Research.

[4]  Derek H. Arnold,et al.  Staying focused: a functional account of perceptual suppression during binocular rivalry. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[5]  John F Blaylock,et al.  Intermediate optimization of vision with bilateral nonaspheric multifocal intraocular lens implantation , 2009, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[6]  Jennifer J. Hunter,et al.  Vision science and adaptive optics, the state of the field , 2017, Vision Research.

[7]  S. Sahu,et al.  Multifocal intraocular lens explantation: a case series of 50 eyes. , 2015, American journal of ophthalmology.

[8]  Susana Marcos,et al.  Visual testing of segmented bifocal corrections with a compact simultaneous vision simulator , 2014 .

[9]  E. Peli,et al.  Adaptation to blurred and sharpened video. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[10]  H. Kaymak,et al.  Intraindividual comparison of the effect of training on visual performance with ReSTOR and Tecnis diffractive multifocal IOLs. , 2008, Journal of refractive surgery.

[11]  Pablo Artal,et al.  Binocular adaptive optics visual simulator. , 2009, Optics letters.

[12]  Susana Marcos,et al.  Differences in visual quality with orientation of a rotationally asymmetric bifocal intraocular lens design , 2016, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[13]  Pablo Artal,et al.  Comparison of binocular through-focus visual acuity with monovision and a small aperture inlay. , 2014, Biomedical optics express.

[14]  Pablo Artal,et al.  Binocular adaptive optics vision analyzer with full control over the complex pupil functions. , 2011, Optics letters.

[15]  Susana Marcos,et al.  Adaptation to optically induced simultaneous bifocal vision , 2015 .

[16]  Bruce J W Evans,et al.  Monovision: a review , 2007, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[17]  W Neil Charman,et al.  Developments in the correction of presbyopia II: surgical approaches , 2014, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[18]  Alejandro Cerviño,et al.  Visual performance with simultaneous vision multifocal contact lenses , 2012, Clinical & experimental optometry.

[19]  Nan-Suey Liu,et al.  Mach number distribution and plume direction prediction of a rocket thruster operating at four different combustion chamber pressures , 2004, Journal of Vision.

[20]  W Neil Charman,et al.  Developments in the correction of presbyopia I: spectacle and contact lenses , 2014, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[21]  R. Steinert,et al.  Explanted multifocal intraocular lenses. , 2015, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[22]  Susana Marcos,et al.  Experimental simulation of simultaneous vision. , 2013, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[23]  Susana Marcos,et al.  Portable simultaneous vision device to simulate multifocal corrections , 2016 .

[24]  S. Marcos,et al.  Temporal multiplexing to simulate multifocal intraocular lenses: theoretical considerations. , 2017, Biomedical optics express.

[25]  Gaetano Lodato,et al.  One-year outcomes with new-generation multifocal intraocular lenses. , 2008, Ophthalmology.

[26]  Li Wang,et al.  Custom optimization of intraocular lens asphericity , 2007, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[27]  Susana Marcos,et al.  Visual simulators replicate vision with multifocal lenses , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[28]  M. Campbell,et al.  Presbyopia and the optical changes in the human crystalline lens with age , 1998, Vision Research.

[29]  A. Lichtinger,et al.  Intraocular lenses for presbyopia correction: past, present, and future , 2012, Current opinion in ophthalmology.

[30]  M. Webster,et al.  A cyclopean neural mechanism compensating for optical differences between the eyes , 2015, Current Biology.

[31]  M J Simpson.  Diffractive multifocal intraocular lens image quality. , 1992, Applied optics.

[32]  Béatrice Cochener,et al.  Clinical Ophthalmology Dovepress Comparison of Outcomes with Multifocal Intraocular Lenses: a Meta-analysis , 2022 .

[33]  Kamilla RUN JOHANNSDOTTIR,et al.  Monovision: a Review of the Scientific Literature , 2001, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[34]  K. Fisher,et al.  Presbyopic visual performance with modified monovision using multifocal soft contact lenses , 1997 .

[35]  Pablo Artal,et al.  Binocular visual simulation of a corneal inlay to increase depth of focus. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[36]  Michael A. Webster,et al.  Vision Is Adapted to the Natural Level of Blur Present in the Retinal Image , 2011, PloS one.

[37]  Pablo Artal,et al.  Adaptive optics binocular visual simulator to study stereopsis in the presence of aberrations. , 2010, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[38]  Susana Marcos,et al.  Adaptation to interocular differences in blur. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[39]  Hideharu Ohsugi,et al.  Comparison of Visual Performance of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses with Same Material Monofocal Intraocular Lenses , 2013, PloS one.

[40]  S. Marcos,et al.  Short-Term Neural Adaptation to Simultaneous Bifocal Images , 2014, PloS one.