Atchison David A, Lu Jianing, Yip Cleo, Suheimat Marwan, Schmid Katrina L
School of Optometry and Vision Sciences and Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia *
Optom Vis Sci. 2019 Feb;96(2):111-116. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001334.
Nominally plano ophthalmic prisms give autorefraction results similar to those predicted on the basis of how effective powers change with pantoscopic tilt, and magnifying lenses give autorefraction results similar to those predicted on the basis of vergence changes. Without appreciation of the optics involved, these effects might wrongly be considered artifacts.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the interactions of autorefractors with lenses and prisms.
There were 15 adult participants across three experiments, with a range of ages and refractions. In experiments 1 and 2, participants wore frames containing base-up and base-down nominally plano prisms. In experiment 3, participants wore a lens that produced either 6.3% magnification or 5.9% minification, depending on which surface faced the eye. Autorefracting instruments with different operating principles were used: Shin-Nippon SRW5000 autorefractor, Grand Seiko 5100K autorefractor, Hoya AR-530 autorefractor, a Complete Ophthalmic Analysis System-High Definition wavefront sensor, and Tomey FC-800 autorefractor. A theory on the likely effects of magnifying lenses was presented.
For ophthalmic prisms, refractions showed results similar to those predicted on the basis of how effective prism powers change with pantoscopic tilt. As tilt increased, base-up prism gave more positive mean refractions and more negative horizontal/vertical astigmatism and vice versa for base-down prisms. In the presence of 10° tilt, 8Δ base-up prisms and 8Δ base-down prisms had different effects by a mean of 0.36 diopters. Magnifying lenses affected refractions similar to those predicted on the basis of vergence changes, with 6% magnification and minification producing mean changes of -11 and +8%, respectively, in absolute mean refraction. There was no strong evidence that different instruments had different effects.
The results have implications for studies in which prisms and lenses are placed in the front eyes, such as accommodation studies using thick lenses close to the eyes to stimulate accommodation rather than by changing object distance.
标称平面的眼科棱镜给出的自动验光结果与基于有效屈光力随前倾角变化的预测结果相似，而放大镜给出的自动验光结果与基于聚散度变化的预测结果相似。如果不了解其中涉及的光学原理，这些效应可能会被错误地视为伪像。
本研究的目的是调查自动验光仪与透镜和棱镜之间的相互作用。
在三个实验中共有15名成年参与者，年龄和屈光状态各异。在实验1和2中，参与者佩戴装有底朝上和底朝下标称平面棱镜的框架。在实验3中，参与者佩戴根据朝向眼睛的表面不同可产生6.3%放大率或5.9%缩小率的透镜。使用了具有不同工作原理的自动验光仪器：日本新日本SRW5000自动验光仪、精工5100K自动验光仪、豪雅AR-530自动验光仪、完整眼科分析系统-高清晰度波前传感器和托米FC-800自动验光仪。提出了一个关于放大镜可能效应的理论。
对于眼科棱镜，验光结果与基于有效棱镜屈光力随前倾角变化的预测结果相似。随着倾斜度增加，底朝上棱镜给出的平均屈光更正值，水平/垂直散光更负值，底朝下棱镜则相反。在10°倾斜度下，8Δ底朝上棱镜和8Δ底朝下棱镜的平均差异为0.36屈光度。放大镜对验光的影响与基于聚散度变化的预测结果相似，6%的放大率和缩小率分别使绝对平均屈光产生-11%和+8%的平均变化。没有强有力的证据表明不同仪器有不同的影响。
这些结果对于在前眼部放置棱镜和透镜的研究具有启示意义，例如使用靠近眼睛的厚透镜刺激调节而非改变物距的调节研究。
