Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 10375248

Afocal magnification does not influence chick eye development.

Abstract

In defocus-induced ametropia experiments, retinal blur circles are a likely source of information as to the magnitude but not the sign of the defocus. However, magnification (and minification) produced by the lenses may be a cue. In this study, 1-day-old broiler chicks (N = 13) were treated monocularly for 7 days with special goggles containing approximately afocal iseikonic lenses which were designed to produce 10% retinal image magnification. This is a little less than the magnification produced by +10 D defocusing lenses used to produce about 10 D of hyperopia in earlier work. Intraocular dimensions of both eyes were measured by A-scan ultrasonography on the first and last day. Refractive states of both eyes were measured daily with a retinoscope and trial lenses. After the birds were sacrificed, the eyes were enucleated, weighed, and measured with calipers. Before the treatment there was no difference in the refractive state or dimensions of the right and left eyes. After 1 week of goggle wear there was still no significant difference between the eyes in spite of the magnification produced by the goggles. These data suggest that factors other than magnification are responsible for the ability of the eye to respond to the sign of defocus.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T A Curry, J G Sivak, M G Callender, E L Irving. 1999. Afocal magnification does not influence chick eye development.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-199905000-00020

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conceptual model of human blur perception.

An empirically based, conceptual model of human blur perception is presented. It incorporates the concepts of blur detection and blur discrimination in depth, and across the central and peripheral retina, in two- and three-dimensional visual space. Key aspects of the model are its dynamic nature, predictability regarding the blur-based depth-ordering of objects, patterns of retinal defocus with far and near viewing, and interactions related to retinal defocus between the central and peripheral retina. Furthermore, a two-dimensional schematic representation of the blur-free region during near viewing is depicted in dioptric space. This model has implications with respect to accommodative control, depth perception, and refractive error development and progression.

Accommodation, Ocular↗

The effect of human in vivo accommodation on crystalline lens stability.

AIM: To determine the effect of human in vivo accommodation on the stability of the crystalline lens. METHODS: Using a dual Purkinje image (DPI) eyetracker, the phase-time difference and amplitudes of Purkinje images I (P(I)) and IV (P(1V)) were measured in 37 normal emmetropic subjects (34 women and 3 men; mean age 19.8, range 18-22 years) when they changed focus from 70 to 15 cm and simultaneously rotated their heads horizontally from side to side or made horizontal saccades between two targets 6.8 degrees apart. RESULTS: When the subjects changed focus from 70 to 15 cm and rotated their heads or made eye saccades, the phase-time difference between P(I) and P(IV) decreased. During saccades, the amplitude of both P(I) and P(IV) overshoots significantly increased with focus at 15 cm; however, their ratio (P(IV) overshoot amplitude/P(I) overshoot amplitude) significantly declined. CONCLUSIONS: The lens is stable during accommodation. The implications of these findings on the mechanism of accommodation are discussed.

Accommodation, Ocular↗

Synchrony dual-optic accommodating intraocular lens. Part 2: pilot clinical evaluation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of an accommodating dual-optic intraocular lens (IOL). SETTING: Private practice and university centers. METHODS: A prospective noncomparative case series with retrospective control comprised 21 patients (26 eyes) scheduled for small-incision extracapsular cataract extraction by phacoemulsification with implantation of the Synchrony dual-optic accommodating IOL (Visiogen) (accommodating IOL group) and 10 patients who had small-incision extracapsular phacoemulsification with implantation of a monofocal, single-optic IOL at least 6 months previously (control group). Patients were examined 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Defocus curves in the accommodating IOL group were compared with those in the control group. The main outcome measures were postoperative distance uncorrected and best corrected visual acuity; near uncorrected, distance corrected, and near corrected visual acuity; and accommodative range based on defocus curves. RESULTS: Twenty-four eyes were available at the 6-month follow-up visit. All eyes had best corrected distance visual acuity of 20/40 or better, and 19 eyes (79%) had an uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/40 or better. Uncorrected near visual acuity was 20/40 or better in all eyes. With distance correction, 23 eyes (96%) had an acuity of 20/40 or better at near. Defocus curve analysis suggested a mean accommodative range of 3.22 diopters (D) +/- 0.88 (SD) (range 1.00 to 5.00 D) in the accommodating IOL group and 1.65 +/- 0.58 D in the control group (range 1.00 to 2.50 D) (P<.05). CONCLUSION: The Synchrony dual-optic IOL shows promise as an option to provide accommodative function in pseudophakic patients.

Accommodation, Ocular↗