Effect of Pupil Size on Ocular Wavefront Aberration Changes with Accommodation

1
Effect of Pupil Size on Ocular Wavefront
Aberration Changes with Accommodation
Yoshihiko Iida
Kimiya Shimizu
Kazutaka Kamiya
Misae Ito
Hiroshi Uozato
Kitasato University
2
Background

• Wavefront aberrations are affected by
  accommodation,
• as has been reported previously.

• Previous studies of aberration were performed
  with a
• fixed pupil diameter to eliminate the effects
  of pupil
• diameter.

• For everyday visual function, the influence of
  pupil size
• must be taken into account.

We evaluated the effect of pupil size on ocular
wavefront aberration changes with accommodation.
We have no Financial Interest.
3
Subjects
40 healthy and emmetropic eyes of 32 subjects
Age 27 /- 3 years (2133 years)
Spherical equivalent 0.04 /- 0.29 D
Apparatus
i TraceTM (Tracey Technologies, Corp.)
Ray-tracing aberrometry
Built-in target (accommodative
stimulant)
Multi-zone measurement/analysis
(pupil size 28 mm )
4
Methods
4 mm scan (fixed zone of pupil)
Accomodation demands 0 D
4 D (step 1 D)
Data analysis
Accommodative response
Pupil diameter
Full scan (all-diameter zone of pupil)
Total higher-order aberrations
3rd-order aberrations
4 mm scan vs Full scan
4th-order aberrations
Spherical aberration
component (C )
0 4
5

1. Accommodative response
   and Pupil diameter

lt Results gt


7

4
3
6
Pupil diameter (mm)
2
Accommodative Response (D)
5
1
0


0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
0
4
Accommodative stimulus (D)
Accommodative stimulus (D)
One-way repeated measures ANOVA p0.0003
Post-hoc Tukey-Kramers test plt0.05, plt0.01
6
2. Total higher-order aberrations

( mm )
0.25

0.20
0.15
p0.0457
Wavefront error (RMS)
0.10
p0.0879 (N.S)
0.05
One-way repeated measures ANOVA Post-hoc
Tukey-Kramers test plt0.05
0
1
2
3
4
0
Accommodative stimulus (D)
7
3. 3rd-order aberrations (coma like)
0.25
( mm )
0.20
0.15
Wavefront error (RMS)
p0.4554 (N.S)
0.10
p0.0732 (N.S)
0.05
0
One-way repeated measures ANOVA
2
0
1
3
4
Accommodative stimulus (D)
8
4-1. 4th-order aberrations (spherical like)
0.15
( mm )





0.10
Wavefront error (RMS)
plt0.0001
0.05
p0.3455 (N.S)
One-way repeated measures ANOVA Post-hoc
Tukey-Kramers test plt0.05, Plt0.01
0
2
0
1
3
4
Accommodative stimulus (D)
9
4-2. 4th-order aberrations (C spherical
aberration component)
4mm
0 4
Full scan
( mm )
lt phase gt
lt amount of aberration gt

0.30




positive
0.20
plt0.0001
0.10
Wavefront error
0
p0.4554 (N.S)
-0.10
negative
-0.20
2
2
0
1
3
4
0
1
3
4
Accommodative stimulus (D)
One-way repeated measures ANOVA Post-hoc
Tukey-Kramers test Plt0.01
10
Summary
Pupil diameter
Decreased with accommodation
Wavefront aberrations with accommodation
4mm scan
Full scan
N.S
Decreased
Total HOA (RMS)
N.S
3rd-order (RMS)
N.S
4th-order (RMS)
N.S
Decreased
0 4
Spherical aberration component (C )
Phase
Amount of aberration
Decreased
N.S
11
Effect of pupil size on spherical aberration
Positive aberration
Far Vision
1




?
?






Near Vision (accommodation)
miosis
Negative aberration
1
?
?
?
2
By miosis, it is possible to
Decrease the amount of wavefront aberration
Use the changes in the central portion more
effectively
12
Conclusions

• Wavefront aberrations were decreased by
• pupil constriction (miosis) with
• accommodation demand.
• By miosis with accommodation, phase shift
• of spherical aberrations was advantageous
• for near vision.