Finally, to compensate for the visual effectiveness of rays entering at different distances from the pupil's center,15 the SCE was additionally incorporated in all single valued metrics besides the paraxial curvature, the RMS, the PFSc, and the PFSt. The SCE was incorporated as a Gaussian apodizing filter in the pupil function:
where r is the pupil radius and β parameter was assumed to be 0.12/mm2.16,17
To assess the effectiveness of the single valued metrics in predicting the subjective cycloplegic spherical correction, each calculated refraction was compared with the corresponding subjective cycloplegic refraction. The agreement between the subjective cycloplegic spherical refraction and the objective spherical refraction was estimated by correlation analysis and Bland-Altman plots.18,19 The correlation coefficient defines the strength of a relation between two variables, but it is not an indicator of their congruity. On the other hand, Bland-Altman plots provide a simple but informative analysis on the degree of agreement between two methods of clinical measurement and permit the investigation of any possible relationship between the measurement error and the true value. The lack of agreement can be summarized by evaluating the bias, the value determined by the subjective method minus the value determined by the objective methods. Finally, a comparison between the monochromatic and their polychromatic counterparts, as well as between the single valued metrics incorporating SCE and their counterparts not including SCE, was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test. A p-value of <0.05 was considered as statistical significant.
Seventy eyes of the 82 eyes were included in the study (12 eyes were excluded because of obviously problematic wavefront maps, for example, several missing points either in the center or in the periphery); mean age was 29.5 ± 7.7 years (range, 19 to 55 years). Subjective spherical refraction ranged from 0 D to −9.75 D (mean value ± SD, −3.78 ± 2.27 D) and astigmatic error from 0 D to −2.5 D (mean value ± SD, −0.49 ± 0.46 D).
The measurement error (bias) in predicting spherical refraction based on the single valued metrics varied. All metrics predicted subjective cycloplegic spherical refraction with a bias of 0.36 D or less, except paraxial curvature that predicted subjective cycloplegic spherical refraction with an accuracy of −0.68 D. Table 2 presents the bias in predicting subjective cycloplegic spherical refraction by the various single valued metrics. The polychromatic single valued metrics exhibited a bias that was significantly greater when compared with their monochromatic counterparts (p < 0.01). Moreover, single valued metrics incorporating the SCE exhibited a statistical significant improvement in predicting subjective cycloplegic spherical correction compared with their non-SCE counterparts (p < 0.01), except from the Strehl ratio, the orientMTF, and the vhfMTF. Finally, the mean difference between the subjective cycloplegic and objective spherical refraction as predicted by the RMS, the PFSc, and the PFSt was 0.36 D, 0.24 D, and 0.28 D, respectively. These three metrics along with the paraxial curvature were the weakest predictors of the subjective cycloplegic spherical refraction, meaning that they showed the largest amount of bias, when compared with the other monochromatic single valued metrics that incorporated the SCE.
With respect to the monochromatic metrics incorporating the SCE, the Strehl ratio exhibited the smallest bias (0.18 D), followed by the weightedMTF and the vhfMTF (0.19 D), the orientMTF and the Strehl ratio computed in frequency domain (0.20 D), and finally the visual Strehl ratio computed in frequency domain (0.24 D; Fig. 1; Table 2).
Despite the bias observed in all metrics, predicted spherical refraction showed a statistically significant correlation with subjective cycloplegic spherical refraction for all single valued metrics (coefficient of determination ≥0.96, p < 0.05; Fig. 2).
In regards with the SD of differences, all metrics exhibited similar behavior (∼0.50 D). The SD of the differences between the subjective cycloplegic and the objective spherical refraction ranged from 0.44 to 0.53 D. The following figure (Fig. 3) shows the Bland-Altman plot for one metric (monochromatic Strehl ratio computed in the Fourier domain considering the SCE).
The appropriate definition of a metric that is optimized at the subjective best focus for each eye is not merely a task of specific practical interest. Identification of the mathematical conditions that describe retinal imagery at best focus could lead to a better understanding of the link between quality of the optics and quality of vision in the human eye. The fact that visual image quality is a subjective quantity in the sense that it may be regarded in a different manner among different individuals has led to the argument that a global metric of visual image quality may not exist. Our results, as well as previous reports,3–5,10,20,21 suggest that none of the metrics we evaluated predicted subjective best focus with a SD smaller than—or comparable with—the combined error margins of clinical refraction and wavefront aberrometry. Although these SDs seem to limit the applicability of wavefront-based calculations of refraction for clinical practice, it must be kept in mind that they are comparable with the intraobserver agreement for subjective refraction.22 The gold standard in this study for comparing metrics' predictions to subjective best focus were single measurements of clinical refraction performed by one clinician. Although possibly more accurate estimates of the subjective best focus would be achieved if multiple subjective refractions were averaged, the methodology we applied evaluates the level of agreement between refractions calculated by a wavefront aberrometry and refractions taken in a typical clinical setting. Our calculations were performed using Zernike polynomials up to the fourth order based on the assumption that higher orders (because of their small magnitude) do not contribute significantly in the calculated refraction. To validate this assumption, we evaluated the difference in the calculated refraction when fifth and sixth order terms were included in the WA. The fifth and sixth order terms were simulated using the statistical model of Thibos et al.2 These calculations confirmed that including these terms would not affect the results.
Our findings on the SD of the error were similar to values reported in previous studies.5 Moreover, in accordance with previous studies,4,5 the optimization of the RMS WA was found to be a poor predictor of subjective refraction. Our results demonstrated that although the paraxial curvature exhibited the smallest SD of the differences between subjective and objective refraction (0.44 D), it was characterized by a marked bias (−0.68 D). It is reasonable to expect that refraction based on paraxial curvature would be less accurate than those predicted by the rest of the metrics, because this metric neglects higher order aberrations (other than spherical aberration) present in the system.4 Although orders higher than the fourth may be of small significance, this may not necessarily be true for the third-order aberrations (e.g., coma). On the accuracy of refraction based on the paraxial curvature, there is confounding evidence in the literature. Thibos et al.5 have found that the error of refraction based on the paraxial curvature was surprisingly small, whereas Guirao and Williams4 have reported an error similar to the error reported herein.
Previous investigators5 have suggested that the implementation of polychromatic metrics and incorporation of the SCE might improve the accuracy and the precision of the results. In this study, we evaluated more elaborate (and presumably more accurate) metrics, such as polychromatic metrics and metrics where the SCE is incorporated, without a dramatic improvement of the results. The best results were observed with monochromatic metrics incorporating the SCE. However, the improvement of the accuracy was marginal. In other words, the refraction predicted by the SCE metrics correlated better to the refraction predicted by their non-SCE counterparts rather than to the subjective refraction.
In addition to the incorporation of the SCE in existing metrics, we defined and evaluated metrics that were, in a way, modeling the task used to optimize subjective focus, i.e., subjective optimization of angular resolution. These metrics (such as the vhfMTF and the orientMTF) are weighted integrals under the MTF at high spatial frequencies centered at 36 cpd, matching the Fourier power spectra of letters having angular dimensions equal to 5 arc min. The underlying hypothesis was that because the subject was able to identify these letters, its optical system should be able to transfer efficiently the characteristic frequencies in the letter's spectrum. We hypothesized that keeping the above- mentioned portion of the MTF above a certain threshold would be a mathematical argument of relevance to the task performed. Moreover, given that the MTF at high spatial frequencies is very sensitive to defocus, these metrics would define defocus within a narrow range. Although not necessarily describing optimal image quality in a broad sense, the refraction predicted by these metrics would reflect the refraction necessary for the optical system to transfer the spatial frequencies of the resolved Snellen letters.
As mentioned in the “Methods” section, all subjects had best spectacle-corrected visual acuity better than −0.1 logMAR (mean 0.009, SD 0.0396). Intriguingly, for some of the subjects, the difference between the calculated and the manifest refraction is so great, which should be examined on the basis of measurement and/or interpretation error. The variability of the WA measurement itself could not lead to errors of this magnitude. The most significant source of error seems to lie in the conversion of the WA measured in the infrared to the equivalent WA at the center of the visible spectrum. In this conversion, an extrapolation of the longitudinal chromatic aberration for the human eye was involved,14 as well as an apparent increase of the axial length of the eye because of the increased relative reflectance of the retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) layer compared with the photoreceptor layer.5,23 A thickness of 125 μm was assumed between the photoreceptor layer and the RPE layer, presumably representing the stronger reflectance in the near infrared.24 However, intersubject variability of fundus pigmentation may have resulted to different contributions to total reflectance from the photoreceptor layer and the RPE layer. Moreover, there is confounding evidence as to whether such an axial correction is necessary. Llorente et al.25 found that the Thibos et al.14 model works well in giving a correction, suggesting that the distance correction is unnecessary, while Williams et al.26 have suggested that the photoreceptors act as waveguides on the return path so that the distance between them and the reflecting layer is irrelevant. Nonetheless, other reports have illustrated a decrease in cone directionality and an increase of the diffuse background reflection with wavelength, suggesting a change on the average overall reflectance depth.27,28 Anyhow, this apparent axial length difference (125 μm between photoreceptor and RPE layers) corresponds with a refractive difference of approximately 0.35 D. The error associated with the above-mentioned assumptions may need to be further investigated in future studies. Moreover, it is not clear that the WA should be converted to the wavelength of 550 nm for all subjects. Given that luminance contrast created by the L and M cones is responsible for structure (i.e., letter) identification using foveal vision, it is possible that refraction should be optimized for a wavelength between the peak of the spectral sensitivity of the L and the M cones depending also on the L/M ratio of each subject. If this hypothesis is true, it could explain another (approximately) 0.1 D of intersubject variability originating from the longitudinal chromatic aberration between best focus for L and M cones.
Another issue that has not been mathematically treated in this or previous similar studies is depth of focus. All metrics resulting from WA measurements are optimized using an appropriate spherical correction to place the far point of each given eye to infinity. On the other hand, subjective cycloplegic refraction as performed in this study intends to make the eye less myopic by one-half of its depth of focus. This fact may lead all metrics to optimize with a systematic bias toward more negative refractions than observed clinically, thus decreasing the bias value. This is not easy to overcome, because depth of focus in vision is another subjective quantity, possibly more difficult to describe mathematically than best focus. This might also explain the difference in accuracy compared with a previous study,5 in which wavefront measurements were taken after correcting the spherocylindrical error using trial lenses to emphasize the effect of high-order aberrations.
Finally, a cylindrical wavefront was added to the original wave aberration of the eye to correct for the astigmatic component. The cylindrical wavefront approximation was based on the second- and fourth-order astigmatic Zernike coefficients and the power vector analysis that has been shown to provide a reliable prediction of manifest cylinder correction.11 However, residual astigmatism may influence the calculation of the spherical correction as the metric-optimizing sphere might be shifted to compensate for the actual rather than the calculated astigmatism. Ideally, sphere cylinder and axis should be optimized simultaneously for each metric. However, optimization of all three variables for all subjects and all eyes could not be performed within a practical time frame using the available computing power.
All different metrics resulted to effectively similar performance with no striking superiority in either accuracy or precision of any metric. In accordance to previous studies, our results indicate that it is not possible to define a global metric capable of predicting subjective best focus by simple processing of WA data recorded in the infrared. This finding is more likely to occur because of measurement and interpretation error (namely conversion between measurement and visually relevant wavelengths) rather than calculation or definition errors.
The project is co-funded by the European Social Fund and National resources.
Harilaos S. Ginis
Institute of Vision and Optics
University of Crete
GR-71003 Voutes Heraklion
1. Castejon-Mochon JF, Lopez-Gil N, Benito A, Artal P. Ocular wave-front aberration statistics in a normal young population. Vision Res 2002;42:1611–7.
2. Thibos LN, Hong X, Bradley A, Cheng X. Statistical variation of aberration structure and image quality in a normal population of healthy eyes. J Opt Soc Am (A) 2002;19:2329–48.
3. Cheng X, Bradley A, Thibos LN. Predicting subjective judgment of best focus with objective image quality metrics. J Vis 2004;4:310–21.
4. Guirao A, Williams DR. A method to predict refractive errors from wave aberration data. Optom Vis Sci 2003;80:36–42.
5. Thibos LN, Hong X, Bradley A, Applegate RA. Accuracy and precision of objective refraction from wavefront aberrations. J Vis 2004;4:329–51.
6. Campbell FW, Kulikowski JJ, Levinson J. The effect of orientation on the visual resolution of gratings. J Physiol 1966;187:427–36.
7. McMahon MJ, MacLeod DI. The origin of the oblique effect examined with pattern adaptation and masking. J Vis 2003;3:230–9.
8. Ginis HS, Plainis S, Pallikaris A. Variability of wavefront aberration measurements in small pupil sizes using a clinical Shack-Hartmann aberrometer. BMC Ophthalmol 2004;4:1.
9. Thibos LN, Applegate RA, Schwiegerling JT, Webb R. Standards for reporting the optical aberrations of eyes. J Refract Surg 2002;18:S652–60.
10. Marsack JD, Thibos LN, Applegate RA. Metrics of optical quality derived from wave aberrations predict visual performance. J Vis 2004;4:322–8.
11. Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: an application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci 1997;74:367–75.
12. Plainis S, Ginis HS, Pallikaris A. The effect of ocular aberrations on steady-state errors of accommodative response. J Vis 2005;5:466–77.
13. Watson AB, Ahumada AJ Jr. A standard model for foveal detection of spatial contrast. J Vis 2005;5:717–40.
14. Thibos LN, Ye M, Zhang XX, Bradley A. The chromatic eye: a new reduced-eye model of ocular chromatic aberration in humans. Appl Opt 1992;31:3594–600.
15. Stiles WS, Crawford BH. The luminous efficiency of rays entering the eye pupil at different points. Proc R Soc London (B) 1933;112:428–50.
16. Applegate RA, Lakshminarayanan V. Parametric representation of Stiles-Crawford functions: normal variation of peak location and directionality. J Opt Soc Am (A) 1993;10:1611–23.
17. Atchison DA, Smith G. Optics of the Human Eye. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2000.
18. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–10.
19. Bland JM, Altman DG. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 1995;346:1085–7.
20. Chen L, Singer B, Guirao A, Porter J, Williams DR. Image metrics for predicting subjective image quality. Optom Vis Sci 2005;82:358–69.
21. Cheng X, Thibos LN, Bradley A. Estimating visual quality from wavefront aberration measurements. J Refract Surg 2003;19:S579–84.
22. Pesudovs K, Parker KE, Cheng H, Applegate RA. The precision of wavefront refraction compared to subjective refraction and autorefraction. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:387–92.
23. Elsner AE, Burns SA, Weiter JJ, Delori FC. Infrared imaging of sub-retinal structures in the human ocular fundus. Vision Res 1996;36:191–205.
24. Delori FC, Pflibsen KP. Spectral reflectance of the human ocular fundus. Appl Opt 1989;28:1061–77.
25. Llorente L, Diaz-Santana L, Lara-Saucedo D, Marcos S. Aberrations of the human eye in visible and near infrared illumination. Optom Vis Sci 2003;80:26–35.
26. Williams DR, Brainard DH, McMahon MJ, Navarro R. Double-pass and interferometric measures of the optical quality of the eye. J Opt Soc Am (A) 1994;11:3123–35.
27. Marcos S, Burns SA. Cone spacing and waveguide properties from cone directionality measurements. J Opt Soc Am (A) 1999;16:995–1004.
28. Zagers NP, Berendschot TT, van Norren D. Wavelength dependence of reflectometric cone photoreceptor directionality. J Opt Soc Am (A) 2003;20:18–23.
Keywords:© 2010 American Academy of Optometry
single valued metrics; spherical refraction; wavefront; aberrations; Stiles Crawford effect; polychromatic