Influence of Presbyopic Corrections on Driving-Related Eye and Head Movements

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Management with contact lenses and spectacles

This paper seeks to outline the history, market situation, clinical management and product performance related to the correction of presbyopia with both contact lenses and spectacles. The history of the development of various optical forms of presbyopic correction are reviewed, and an overview is presented of the current market status of contact lenses and spectacles. Clinical considerations in the fitting and aftercare of presbyopic contact lens and spectacle lens wearers are presented, with general recommendations for best practice. Current options for contact lens correction of presbyopia include soft simultaneous, rigid translating and rigid simultaneous designs, in addition to monovision. Spectacle options include single vision lenses, bifocal lenses and a range of progressive addition lenses. The comparative performance of both contact lens and spectacle lens options is presented. With a significant proportion of the global population now being presbyopic, this overview is particularly timely and is designed to act as a guide for researchers, industry and eyecare practitioners alike.

Gaze and behavioural metrics in the refractive correction of presbyopia

PURPOSE

To investigate gaze and behavioural metrics at different viewing distances with multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs), single vision contact lenses (SVCLs) and progressive addition lenses (PALs).

METHODS

Fifteen presbyopic contact lens wearers participated over five separate study visits. At each visit, participants were randomly assigned to wear one of five refractive corrections: habitual PAL spectacles, delefilcon A (Alcon Inc.) MFCLs and three separate pairs of delefilcon A single vision lenses worn as distance, intermediate and near corrections. Participants wore a Pupil Core headset to record eye and head movements while performing three visual tasks: reading, visual search and scene observation. Data were investigated using linear regression and post-hoc testing. Parameters of interest included gaze (fixation duration, head movement) and behavioural (reading speed, reading accuracy, visual search time) metrics.

RESULTS

Reading speed in SVCLs was significantly faster than in MFCLs and PAL spectacles (F = 16.3, p < 0.0001). Refractive correction worn did not influence visual search times (F = 0.16, p = 0.85). Fixation duration was significantly affected by the type of visual task (F = 60.2, p < 0.001), and an interaction effect was observed between viewing distance and refractive correction (F = 4.3, p = 0.002). There was significantly more horizontal and vertical head movement (F = 3.2, p = 0.01 and F = 3.3, p = 0.01, respectively) during visual search tasks when wearing PAL spectacles compared to SVCLs or MFCLs.

CONCLUSION

This work showed that the type of refractive correction affects behavioural metrics such as reading speed and gaze behaviour by affecting horizontal and vertical head movements. The findings of this study suggest that under certain conditions, wearers of MFCLs make fewer head movements compared to PAL spectacles. Gaze behaviour metrics offer a new approach to compare and understand contact lens and spectacle performance, with potential applications including peripheral optical designs for myopia management.

Eye-head coordination and dynamic visual scanning as indicators of visuo-cognitive demands in driving simulator

Driving is an everyday task involving a complex interaction between visual and cognitive processes. As such, an increase in the cognitive and/or visual demands can lead to a mental overload which can be detrimental for driving safety. Compiling evidence suggest that eye and head movements are relevant indicators of visuo-cognitive demands and attention allocation. This study aims to investigate the effects of visual degradation on eye-head coordination as well as visual scanning behavior during a highly demanding task in a driving simulator. A total of 21 emmetropic participants (21 to 34 years old) performed dual-task driving in which they were asked to maintain a constant speed on a highway while completing a visual search and detection task on a navigation device. Participants did the experiment with optimal vision and with contact lenses that introduced a visual perturbation (myopic defocus). The results indicate modifications of eye-head coordination and the dynamics of visual scanning in response to the visual perturbation induced. More specifically, the head was more involved in horizontal gaze shifts when the visual needs were not met. Furthermore, the evaluation of visual scanning dynamics, based on time-based entropy which measures the complexity and randomness of scanpaths, revealed that eye and gaze movements became less explorative and more stereotyped when vision was not optimal. These results provide evidence for a reorganization of both eye and head movements in response to increasing visual-cognitive demands during a driving task. Altogether, these findings suggest that eye and head movements can provide relevant information about visuo-cognitive demands associated with complex tasks. Ultimately, eye-head coordination and visual scanning dynamics may be good candidates to estimate drivers' workload and better characterize risky driving behavior.

Pattern of reading eye movements during monovision contact lens wear in presbyopes

Monovision can be used as a method to correct presbyopia with contact lenses (CL) but its effect on reading behavior is still poorly understood. In this study eye movements (EM) were recorded in fifteen presbyopic participants, naïve to monovision, whilst they read arrays of words, non-words, and text passages to assess whether monovision affected their reading. Three conditions were compared, using daily disposable CLs: baseline (near correction in both eyes), conventional monovision (distance correction in the dominant eye, near correction in the non-dominant eye), and crossed monovision (the reversal of conventional monovision). Behavioral measures (reading speed and accuracy) and EM parameters (single fixation duration, number of fixations, dwell time per item, percentage of regressions, and percentage of skipped items) were analyzed. When reading passages, no differences in behavioral and EM measures were seen in any comparison of the three conditions. The number of fixations and dwell time significantly increased for both monovision and crossed monovision with respect to baseline only with word and non-word arrays. It appears that monovision did not appreciably alter visual processing when reading meaningful texts but some limited stress of the EM pattern was observed only with arrays of unrelated or meaningless items under monovision, which require the reader to have more in-depth controlled visual processing.

Presbyopia: Effectiveness of correction strategies

Presbyopia is a global problem affecting over a billion people worldwide. The prevalence of unmanaged presbyopia is as high as 50% of those over 50 years of age in developing world populations, due to a lack of awareness and accessibility to affordable treatment, and is even as high as 34% in developed countries. Definitions of presbyopia are inconsistent and varied, so we propose a redefinition that states "presbyopia occurs when the physiologically normal age-related reduction in the eye's focusing range reaches a point, when optimally corrected for distance vision, that the clarity of vision at near is insufficient to satisfy an individual's requirements". Strategies for correcting presbyopia include separate optical devices located in front of the visual system (reading glasses) or a change in the direction of gaze to view through optical zones of different optical powers (bifocal, trifocal or progressive addition spectacle lenses), monovision (with contact lenses, intraocular lenses, laser refractive surgery and corneal collagen shrinkage), simultaneous images (with contact lenses, intraocular lenses and corneal inlays), pinhole depth of focus expansion (with intraocular lenses, corneal inlays and pharmaceuticals), crystalline lens softening (with lasers or pharmaceuticals) or restored dynamics (with 'accommodating' intraocular lenses, scleral expansion techniques and ciliary muscle electrostimulation); these strategies may be applied differently to the two eyes to optimise the range of clear focus for an individual's task requirements and minimise adverse visual effects. However, none fully overcome presbyopia in all patients. While the restoration of natural accommodation or an equivalent remains elusive, guidance is given on presbyopic correction evaluation techniques.

Randomized Crossover Trial of Silicone Hydrogel Presbyopic Contact Lenses

PURPOSE

To assess the performance of four commercially available silicone hydrogel multifocal monthly contact lens designs against monovision.

METHODS

A double-masked randomized crossover trial of Air Optix Aqua multifocal, PureVision 2 for Presbyopia, Acuvue OASYS for Presbyopia, Biofinity multifocal, and monovision with Biofinity contact lenses was conducted on 35 presbyopes (54.3 ± 6.2 years). After 4 weeks of wear, visual performance was quantified by high- and low-contrast visual acuity under photopic and mesopic conditions, reading speed, defocus curves, stereopsis, halometry, aberrometry, Near Activity Visual Questionnaire rating, and subjective quality of vision scoring. Bulbar, limbal, and palpebral hyperemia and corneal staining were graded to monitor the impact of each contact lens on ocular physiology.

RESULTS

High-contrast photopic visual acuity (p = 0.102), reading speed (F = 1.082, p = 0.368), and aberrometry (F = 0.855, p = 0.493) were not significantly different between presbyopic lens options. Defocus curve profiles (p < 0.001), stereopsis (p < 0.001), halometry (F = 4.101, p = 0.004), Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (F = 3.730, p = 0.007), quality of vision (p = 0.002), bulbar hyperemia (p = 0.020), and palpebral hyperemia (p = 0.012) differed significantly between lens types, with the Biofinity multifocal lens design principal (center-distance lens was fitted to the dominant eye and a center-near lens to the nondominant eye) typically outperforming the other lenses.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ocular aberration variation between individuals largely masks the differences in optics between current multifocal contact lens designs, certain design strategies can outperform monovision, even in early presbyopes.

Assistive peripheral prosthetic vision aids perception and mobility in outdoor environments: A virtual-reality simulation study

Retinitis pigmentosa (RP) causes visual field (VF) constriction due to progressive loss of photoreceptors, typically from the retinal periphery to the fovea. Retinal prostheses offer vision restoration via electrode implantation and stimulation near the fovea, thereby eliciting articifial percepts, so-called phosphenes in the center VF. Although foveal photoreceptors can persist for prolonged periods of time, bionic therapy is usually restricted to stages of RP with complete vision loss. However, persons with RP experience mobility impairment from peripherally restricted VFs much earlier. Consequently, the amount of visual scanning necessary for navigation is increased, and maintaining a steady pace is challenging. Receiving a retinal implant at this early stage might be feasible. We investigated the potential of a peripheral visual prosthesis coexisting with central residual vision to facilitate scene perception and mobility. Simulating prosthetic and residual vision in a virtual mobility environment, we found that assistive phosphene layouts were associated with reductions in visual scanning-related head movements of up to 42.1%, body rotations of up to 30%, and up to 45% lower frequency of stopping when circumventing low-lying obstacles, pedestrians and following a path. Further research on early implantation of retinal prostheses for the peripheral VF is therefore advised.

Adaptation to multifocal and monovision contact lens correction

PURPOSE

To compare visual performance with the Biofinity multifocal (MF) contact lens with monovision (MV) with the Biofinity single-vision contact lens.

METHODS

A crossover study of 20 presbyopic patients was conducted. Patients were randomized first into either an MF or an MV lens for 15 days for each modality, with a washout period between each lens type. Measurements included monocular and binocular high- and low-contrast logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution visual acuity (VA) at distance and near visions, binocular distance contrast sensitivity function, and near stereoacuity.

RESULTS

At 15 days, patients lost fewer than two letters (half a line of VA) of binocular distance and near VA, with the MF and MV lens under high- and low-contrast conditions (P > 0.05 for both comparisons). No statistically significant differences were seen in binocular VA at near or distance with either lens. However, the monocular distance VA improved significantly in the nondominant eye, with the MF lens by one line over the 15-day period under high-contrast (P = 0.023) and low-contrast (P = 0.035) conditions; this effect was not seen with the MV lens. Contrast sensitivity function was within the normal limits with both lenses. The stereoacuity was significantly (P < 0.01) better with MF than with MV.

CONCLUSIONS

Multifocal contact lens correction provided satisfactory levels of VA comparable with MV without compromising stereoacuity in this crossover study. The near vision significantly improved in the dominant eye, and the distance vision improved in the nondominant eye from 1 to 15 days with the MF lens, suggesting that patients adapted to the multifocality overtime, whereas this was not true for MV.