Ohlendorf Arne, Tabernero Juan, Schaeffel Frank
Institute for Ophthalmic Research, Section of Neurobiology of the Eye, Tübingen, Germany.
Optom Vis Sci. 2011 May;88(5):562-9. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31821281bc.
To compare the effects of "simulated" and "real" spherical and astigmatic defocus on visual acuity (VA).
VA was determined with letter charts that were blurred by calculated spherical or astigmatic defocus (simulated defocus) or were seen through spherical or astigmatic trial lenses (real defocus). Defocus was simulated using ZEMAX and the Liou-Brennan eye model. Nine subjects participated [mean age, 27.2 ± 1.8 years; logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), -0.1]. Three different experiments were conducted in which VA was reduced by 20% (logMAR 0.0), 50% (logMAR 0.2), or 75% (logMAR 0.5) by either (1) imposing positive spherical defocus, (2) imposing positive and negative astigmatic defocus in three axes (0, 45, and 90°), and (3) imposing cross-cylinder defocus in the same three axes as in (2).
Experiment (1): there were only minor differences in VA with simulated and real positive spherical defocus. Experiment (2): simulated astigmatic defocus reduced VA twice as much as real astigmatic defocus in all tested axes (p < 0.01 in all cases). Experiment (3): simulated cross-cylinder defocus reduced VA much more than real cross-cylinder defocus (p < 0.01 in all cases), similarly for all three tested axes.
The visual system appears more tolerant against "real" spherical, astigmatic, and cross-cylinder defocus than against "simulated" blur. Possible reasons could be (1) limitations in the modeling procedures to simulate defocus, (2) higher ocular aberrations, and (3) fluctuations of accommodation. However, the two optical explanations (2) and (3) cannot account for the magnitude of the effect, and (1) was carefully analyzed. It is proposed that something may be special about the visual processing of real astigmatic and cross-cylinder defocus-because they have less effect on VA than simulations predict.
比较“模拟”和“真实”的球面及散光性离焦对视力(VA)的影响。
使用通过计算球面或散光性离焦(模拟离焦)模糊的字母图表或通过球面或散光试验镜片(真实离焦)来测定视力。使用ZEMAX和刘 - 布伦南眼模型模拟离焦。九名受试者参与实验[平均年龄,27.2 ± 1.8岁;最小分辨角对数(logMAR),-0.1]。进行了三个不同的实验,通过以下方式使视力分别降低20%(logMAR 0.0)、50%(logMAR 0.2)或75%(logMAR 0.5):(1)施加正球面离焦,(2)在三个轴(0、45和90°)施加正和负散光性离焦,以及(3)在与(2)相同的三个轴上施加交叉柱镜离焦。
实验(1):模拟和真实的正球面离焦在视力上仅有微小差异。实验(2):在所有测试轴上,模拟散光性离焦使视力降低的程度是真实散光性离焦的两倍(所有情况p < 0.01)。实验(3):模拟交叉柱镜离焦比真实交叉柱镜离焦使视力降低得更多(所有情况p < 0.01),在所有三个测试轴上情况类似。
视觉系统似乎对“真实”的球面、散光和交叉柱镜离焦比“模拟”模糊更具耐受性。可能的原因包括:(1)模拟离焦的建模程序存在局限性,(2)更高的眼像差,以及(3)调节波动。然而,两种光学解释(2)和(3)无法解释这种效应的程度,并且对(1)进行了仔细分析。有人提出,真实散光和交叉柱镜离焦的视觉处理可能存在特殊之处——因为它们对视力的影响比模拟预测的要小。