Quality of vision with traditional monovision versus modified monovision

Abstract

AbstractPurpose To compare binocular subjective quality of vision with modified monovision (MMV) (ie different combinations of spherical (SA4) and secondary spherical (SA6) aberration on each eye) versus traditional monovision (TMV) with different level of anisometropiaMethods A numerical eye model was used to generate images (ie three 0.4 logMAR high contrast letters) viewed through a 4.7mm pupil, degraded by various condition of SA and for proximities from ‐5D to 5D (Naked eye, SA4‐0.4μm, SA4+0.4μm, SA4‐0.4 and SA6+0.2μm, SA4+0.4 and SA6‐0.2μm). Binocular vision was simulated using a 3D‐NVIDIA video device projecting different image on each eye. Binocular through‐focus (TF) quality of vision was evaluated using a grading scale (ITU‐R 500 recommendation) by four subjects with TMV for different level of anisometropia (ie 0.5 to 3D at 0.5D step) and with various combination of MMVResults Area under TF curve (ie a way to evaluate quality of vision) measured for a fair or higher image quality was increased with TMV and MMV compared to naked eye because of the summation of the two best monocular curves. With TMV, a 2.5D anisometropia was the more effective to increase area under TF curve with however a lack of intermediate vision. With MMV the greatest increase of quality of vision was obtained with reverse profile of SA4 and SA6 on each eye (ie SA4‐0.4 and SA6+0.2μm on one eye and SA4+0.4 and SA6‐0.2μm on the other eye). Compared to TMV, reverse profiles of MMV showed a significant benefit in improving area under TF curve thanks to a better quality of intermediate visionConclusion MMV especially with reverse profiles of SA improved overall quality of vision without the lack of intermediate quality of vision intermediate quality of vision induced by TMV