Peripheral refraction profiles in subjects with low foveal refractive errors.
PURPOSE: To study the variability of peripheral refraction in a population of 43 subjects with low foveal refractive errors. METHODS: A scan of the refractive error in the vertical pupil meridian of the right eye of 43 subjects (age range, 18 to 80 years, foveal spherical equivalent, < ± 2.5...
| Hlavní autoři: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Médium: | Journal article |
| Jazyk: | English |
| Vydáno: |
2011
|
| _version_ | 1826276389313052672 |
|---|---|
| author | Tabernero, J Ohlendorf, A Fischer, M Bruckmann, A Schiefer, U Schaeffel, F |
| author_facet | Tabernero, J Ohlendorf, A Fischer, M Bruckmann, A Schiefer, U Schaeffel, F |
| author_sort | Tabernero, J |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | PURPOSE: To study the variability of peripheral refraction in a population of 43 subjects with low foveal refractive errors. METHODS: A scan of the refractive error in the vertical pupil meridian of the right eye of 43 subjects (age range, 18 to 80 years, foveal spherical equivalent, < ± 2.5 diopter) over the central ± 45° of the visual field was performed using a recently developed angular scanning photorefractor. Refraction profiles across the visual field were fitted with four different models: (1) "flat model" (refractions about constant across the visual field), (2) "parabolic model" (refractions follow about a parabolic function), (3) "bi-linear model" (linear change of refractions with eccentricity from the fovea to the periphery), and (4) "box model" ("flat" central area with a linear change in refraction from a certain peripheral angle). Based on the minimal residuals of each fit, the subjects were classified into one of the four models. RESULTS: The "box model" accurately described the peripheral refractions in about 50% of the subjects. Peripheral refractions in six subjects were better characterized by a "linear model," in eight subjects by a "flat model," and in eight by the "parabolic model." Even after assignment to one of the models, the variability remained strikingly large, ranging from -0.75 to 6 diopter in the temporal retina at 45° eccentricity. CONCLUSIONS: The most common peripheral refraction profile (observed in nearly 50% of our population) was best described by the "box model." The high variability among subjects may limit attempts to reduce myopia progression with a uniform lens design and may rather call for a customized approach. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T23:13:13Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:66373a15-f0d5-41f5-81a4-8b340d6a9061 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T23:13:13Z |
| publishDate | 2011 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:66373a15-f0d5-41f5-81a4-8b340d6a90612022-03-26T18:30:27ZPeripheral refraction profiles in subjects with low foveal refractive errors.Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:66373a15-f0d5-41f5-81a4-8b340d6a9061EnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2011Tabernero, JOhlendorf, AFischer, MBruckmann, ASchiefer, USchaeffel, F PURPOSE: To study the variability of peripheral refraction in a population of 43 subjects with low foveal refractive errors. METHODS: A scan of the refractive error in the vertical pupil meridian of the right eye of 43 subjects (age range, 18 to 80 years, foveal spherical equivalent, < ± 2.5 diopter) over the central ± 45° of the visual field was performed using a recently developed angular scanning photorefractor. Refraction profiles across the visual field were fitted with four different models: (1) "flat model" (refractions about constant across the visual field), (2) "parabolic model" (refractions follow about a parabolic function), (3) "bi-linear model" (linear change of refractions with eccentricity from the fovea to the periphery), and (4) "box model" ("flat" central area with a linear change in refraction from a certain peripheral angle). Based on the minimal residuals of each fit, the subjects were classified into one of the four models. RESULTS: The "box model" accurately described the peripheral refractions in about 50% of the subjects. Peripheral refractions in six subjects were better characterized by a "linear model," in eight subjects by a "flat model," and in eight by the "parabolic model." Even after assignment to one of the models, the variability remained strikingly large, ranging from -0.75 to 6 diopter in the temporal retina at 45° eccentricity. CONCLUSIONS: The most common peripheral refraction profile (observed in nearly 50% of our population) was best described by the "box model." The high variability among subjects may limit attempts to reduce myopia progression with a uniform lens design and may rather call for a customized approach. |
| spellingShingle | Tabernero, J Ohlendorf, A Fischer, M Bruckmann, A Schiefer, U Schaeffel, F Peripheral refraction profiles in subjects with low foveal refractive errors. |
| title | Peripheral refraction profiles in subjects with low foveal refractive errors. |
| title_full | Peripheral refraction profiles in subjects with low foveal refractive errors. |
| title_fullStr | Peripheral refraction profiles in subjects with low foveal refractive errors. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Peripheral refraction profiles in subjects with low foveal refractive errors. |
| title_short | Peripheral refraction profiles in subjects with low foveal refractive errors. |
| title_sort | peripheral refraction profiles in subjects with low foveal refractive errors |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT taberneroj peripheralrefractionprofilesinsubjectswithlowfovealrefractiveerrors AT ohlendorfa peripheralrefractionprofilesinsubjectswithlowfovealrefractiveerrors AT fischerm peripheralrefractionprofilesinsubjectswithlowfovealrefractiveerrors AT bruckmanna peripheralrefractionprofilesinsubjectswithlowfovealrefractiveerrors AT schieferu peripheralrefractionprofilesinsubjectswithlowfovealrefractiveerrors AT schaeffelf peripheralrefractionprofilesinsubjectswithlowfovealrefractiveerrors |