June 2015
Volume 56, Issue 7
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2015
Visual performance and perception with bifocal and trifocal presbyopia corrections simulated using a hand-held simultaneous vision device
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Carlos Dorronsoro
    Instituto de Optica, CSIC, Madrid, Spain
  • Jose Ramon Alonso-Sanz
    Instituto de Optica, CSIC, Madrid, Spain
  • Daniel Pascual
    Instituto de Optica, CSIC, Madrid, Spain
  • Aiswaryah Radhakrishnan
    Instituto de Optica, CSIC, Madrid, Spain
  • Miriam Velasco-OCana
    Instituto de Optica, CSIC, Madrid, Spain
  • Pablo Perez-Merino
    Instituto de Optica, CSIC, Madrid, Spain
  • Susana Marcos
    Instituto de Optica, CSIC, Madrid, Spain
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Carlos Dorronsoro, PCT/2014ES/070725 (P), PCT/ES2010/070218 (P); Jose Ramon Alonso-Sanz, PCT/2014ES/070725 (P), PCT/ES2010/070218 (P); Daniel Pascual, PCT/2014ES/070725 (P); Aiswaryah Radhakrishnan, None; Miriam Velasco-OCana, None; Pablo Perez-Merino, None; Susana Marcos, PCT/2014ES/070725 (P)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2015, Vol.56, 4306. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Carlos Dorronsoro, Jose Ramon Alonso-Sanz, Daniel Pascual, Aiswaryah Radhakrishnan, Miriam Velasco-OCana, Pablo Perez-Merino, Susana Marcos; Visual performance and perception with bifocal and trifocal presbyopia corrections simulated using a hand-held simultaneous vision device. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(7 ):4306.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: To evaluate visual performance/perception in patients with simulated multifocal corrections, using a novel hand-held simultaneous vision simulator and clinically-suited visual tests. To identify the optimal multifocal correction in individual patients.

Methods: 5 cyclopeged subjects were evaluated with a miniaturized see-thru simultaneous vision simulator. Multifocal corrections are simulated by a tunable lens (Optotune, AG) operating in temporal multiplexing, able to scan through a 3-diopters (D) addition focus range at 50 Hz, giving a static appearance of multifocal retinal images. Evaluation of the lens by HS-aberrometry and laser ray tracing focimetry reveal high linear response of optical power vs voltage (r=0.997), high optical quality (RMS<0.05 μm), and high reproducibility of thru-focus energy distribution. Seven lenses were simulated, with different energy distributions at far (F) intermediate (I; 1.5D add) and near (N; 3D add): 3 monofocal (100F, 100I & 100N), 2 bifocal (50F50N & 70F30N) and 2 trifocal (33F33I33N & 50F20I30N) patterns. With each lens, high contrast visual acuity (VA) was measured at F, I and N distances using randomized optotypes on a high definition display. Also, subjects scored the perceived quality of a real visual scene containing F, I and N targets, and compared visual quality (2AFC) through 60 random pairs of multifocal corrections.

Results: Average logMAR VA at F ranged between -0.05 (100F) and 0.52 (100N) for monofocal, and between 0.17 (50F20I30N) and 0.43 (33F33I33N) for multifocal corrections (mean 0.25). VA ranges at N were 0.12 (100N) to 0.61 (100F) with monofocal, and 0.26 (50F50N) to 0.42 (70F30N) with multifocal corrections (mean 0.31). Highest multifocal VA at I (0.25) was found for 33F33I33N. On average across distances the highest VA and perceptual scores were found for 100I. Direct comparisons revealed a systematic preference of 50F50N over 70F30N and 50F20I30N over 33F33I33N. However, consistent intersubject differences occurred in VA and perception with the different multifocal corrections.

Conclusions: Temporal multiplexing of a tunable lens provides new ways to simulate multifocal corrections, mimicking existing IOLs/CLs. All multifocal designs outperform monofocal corrections focused at far and near, but not at intermediate distance. Visual quality differed across multifocal designs and patients.


This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.