Abstract
To evaluate the short-term effects of three myopia-control lenses, which impose peripheral myopic defocus while providing clear central vision, on central and peripheral visual performance in myopic children. Twenty-one myopic children were enrolled in the study. Central visual performance was assessed using the quick contrast sensitivity function. Peripheral visual performance was evaluated by measuring peripheral contrast threshold and global motion perception, while subjects maintained fixation through the central portion of the lens. Single-vision spectacle lenses (SVL), spectacle lenses with highly aspherical lenslets (HAL) and defocus-incorporated soft contact (DISC) lenses were evaluated in random order, followed by orthokeratology (OK) lenses. All tests were performed monocularly on the right eye. The area under the log contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF) with DISC lenses was lower than that with SVL (1.14 vs. 1.40, p < 0.001) and HAL (1.14 vs. 1.33, p = 0.001). HAL increased the temporal visual field contrast threshold compared with OK lenses (p = 0.04), and OK lenses decreased the superior visual field contrast threshold compared with that of SVL (p = 0.04) and HAL (p = 0.005). HAL also increased the peripheral coherence threshold for identifying the contraction movement compared with OK lenses (p = 0.01). The short-term use of these optical interventions for myopia control exhibited measurable differences in central and peripheral visual performance. Relevant attention could be paid to these differences, especially when children switch to different treatments. DISC lenses exhibited worse central contrast sensitivity than SVL and HAL. Imposing peripheral defocus signals did not affect children's peripheral visual performance compared with SVL. However, considering the poorer peripheral visual performance provided by HAL, OK lenses are recommended for children if there are specific demands for global scene recognition and motion perception.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.