Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Visual development in infants: physiological and pathological mechanisms

Brémond-Gignac, Dominiquea,b; Copin, Henric; Lapillonne, Alexandred; Milazzo, Solangea

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology: April 2011 - Volume 22 - Issue - p S1–S8
doi: 10.1097/01.icu.0000397180.37316.5d
Clinical Update
Free

Purpose of review This review summarizes current knowledge on ocular conditions related to abnormal visual development in infants, including prevalence, risk factors, causes, and mechanisms involved. We discuss the role of eyeball growth with pathologic mechanism of visual deprivation and development of amblyopia in infants, particular developmental issues in preterm neonates, methods of visual assessment and screening, diagnosis, treatment, and nutritional issues.

Recent findings Visual development is incomplete at birth, particularly in premature infants; maturation of the visual system – including neurological and ocular components – is influenced by many factors including prenatal and postnatal nutrition and postnatal visual stimulation. In early life, particularly during sensitive periods of development, abnormal visual input, for example caused by visual deprivation mechanism, amblyopia, or ocular misalignment, leads to abnormalities in visual development, including abnormal eyeball growth and neurological changes. Untreated anomalies or abnormal visual development can result in long-term or even permanent visual impairment. Nutrition plays a key role in visual development: infant formulas containing nutrients essential for normal visual development (specifically omega-3 fatty acid docosahexaenoic acid and omega-6 fatty acid arachidonic acid) may protect nonbreast-fed infants against visual development abnormalities.

Summary Problems related to visual anomalies are common among young children, particularly in preterm neonates. Screening to enable early diagnosis and correction of visual deficiency is important as abnormal visual input can lead to abnormalities in visual development, which can become permanent visual impairment if left untreated. Optimized nutrition can help to reduce the risk of abnormal visual development and prevent long-term or permanent visual deficits.

aPediatric Ophthalmology Department, Amiens University Hospital (CHU Amiens), University of Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France

bINSERM UMRS 968, Institute of Vision, Paris VI University, Paris, France

cCytogenetic and Reproduction Biology Department, Amiens University Hospital, University of Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France

dDepartment of Pediatrics-Neonatology, APHP, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France

Correspondence to Professor Dominique Brémond-Gignac, Ophthalmology Department, Saint Victor Centre, Amiens University Hospital, 354 Boulevard Beauvillé, 80054 Amiens, France Tel: +33 3 22 82 41 08; fax: +33 3 22 82 40 61; e-mail: bremond.dominique@chu-amiens.fr

Back to Top | Article Outline

Introduction

Development of the visual system – both ocular and neurologic components – is incomplete at birth, even in healthy full-term infants, and its maturation is influenced by many factors including visual stimulation and postnatal nutrition. Visual development is complex and can be affected by many pathophysiological mechanisms. These can involve abnormalities in refraction, retinal definition, optic nerve transmission; maturation of the visual cortex in the occipital lobe and integration of visual data; and external factors such as nutrition and light deprivation. Severe neonatal visual problems are rare, but if left undiagnosed and untreated, can lead to long-term or even permanent visual deficits [1]. In contrast, refraction (or focusing) anomalies, which usually result in reduced visual acuity (blurred vision), are relatively common [2], although early screening for visual defects, diagnosis, and treatment can help to normalize them.

Amblyopia or ‘lazy eye’ is the most common cause of visual loss in children. Functional amblyopia, impaired visual acuity in one or both eyes despite optimum optical correction, often with no overt visual pathology, can occur when amblyopia, due to an underlying disease or condition such as cataract (organic amblyopia), is corrected. Functional amblyopia is due to poor interpretation of the image by the brain as the brain has adjusted to seeing a blurred image. If treated early enough, the brain can relearn how to interpret the image and vision will improve.

During the first few years of life, infants and children are more susceptible to visual development problems. During specific sensitive periods, normal visual input is vital for normal visual development and, conversely, abnormal visual input can result in long-term sight problems. Guidelines recommend early identification and correction of the pathological visual deprivation mechanism during this period to allow normal visual development and to prevent permanent visual problems [3].

A joint policy statement on vision screening in infants and children published in 2007 by the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) and the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) advocate a rigorous screening program during preschool years to enable detection and diagnosis of treatable eye disease [4]. Beginning in the preschool years, vision screening using an acuity chart should include screening for reduced vision in one or both eyes from amblyopia, uncorrected refractive errors or other eye defects, and misalignment of the eyes (strabismus) [4].

Early detection of a faulty visual deprivation mechanism and functional amblyopia has been made easier in recent years with advances in screening techniques. The conditions can be screened for almost immediately after birth, and so every effort should be made to screen as early as possible to avoid permanent visual impairment. Screening can also differentiate between functional amblyopia due to a pathological visual deprivation mechanism and organic amblyopia due to an underlying defect. This is important because, if diagnosed early, functional amblyopia can be reversed using occlusion therapy. This is true even in the presence of an underlying anatomic defect of the eye. In this case, visual recovery may be limited, yet many of these children will have an underlying element of functional amblyopia in addition to their ‘organic’ vision loss, which can be treated with amblyopia therapy with many children recovering at least some vision. Screening is particularly important in preterm infants (usually defined as infants born at <37 weeks gestation, but screening is usually performed in all infants born <32 weeks), who, being born at an earlier stage of ocular and central nervous system (CNS) development, have a particularly high risk of abnormal visual development and long-term/permanent visual impairment compared with full-term infants [5].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Normal development

In normal development of the ocular process, both neurological and optical components of the visual system are immature at birth; basic visual capacity is established shortly after birth and improves rapidly during the first year [6]. A normal process, known as emmetropization, occurs soon after birth to reduce birth hyperopia and is complete in 82% of full-term infants by 12 months [7]. Emmetropization is the normal physiological process of eye growth, involving increased axial length in response to the normal hyperopia of the neonate eye. However, maturation of the visual system continues for several years and, for some components and aspects of visual capability, does not reach full maturity until the late teens [8].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Developments in embryology

Prenatal evaluation of ocular development using fetal ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may allow the detection and confirmation of malformational anomalies such as microphthalmia by comparison of fetal ocular growth with established linear growth rates [9,10]. In a recent retrospective study, data were analyzed from ocular parameters measured in 127 fetuses with a morphologically normal CNS using multiple single-shot T2 fast spin-echo 1.5 Tesla MRI [11]. Findings suggest a quadratic growth model indicating slowing of growth toward the end of gestation; lens growth and interocular distance plateau after 36 weeks of gestation, while globe growth plateaus after 42 weeks [11].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Maturation of the central nervous system components

Visual capabilities in neonates are dependent on the development of visual pathways including those in the visual cortex located in the occipital lobe of the brain, and lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) in the thalamus, and synaptic development of the neurons linking the eyes with the LGN and the visual cortex [12].

The LGN is immature at birth and a rapid increase in postsynaptic surfaces is seen in the first few months after birth, slowing by 2 years. Synaptogenesis in the cortex is also rapid after birth, with a maximum synaptic density at about 8–9 months, followed by a loss of synapses, stabilizing at about 11 years [12]. A neonate has approximately three times fewer cones at birth than in adulthood, which partially explains the blurred vision [13]. The subsequent pruning of the initial overgrowth relates to a period of physiological and behavioral changes in visual function and the risk of development of amblyopia is highest during this period. While the precise functional significance for the loss of synapses is unclear, it is thought to relate to the reduction in CNS plasticity as the nervous system matures [12].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Structural development of the eye

Postnatal structural eye development includes maturation of the macula region of the retina, maturation of the fovea, and eyeball growth [12,14]. While the peripheral retina is relatively mature at birth, differentiation and maturation of the fovea (which is responsible for central vision and has the highest visual acuity) and the macula retinal layers (responsible for colors and contrasts, precise visual acuity, and stereoscopic vision) begins at 6 weeks and continues up to 8 months of age [12,15]. In normal development, the rate of eyeball growth is linked to child growth and so emmetropization occurs as a natural part of the growth process [16].

In a study utilizing multifocal electroretinography (ERG) in 23 full-term infants and 10 adults, differences in ERG were thought to relate to differences in central retina processing between infants and adults [17]. ERG has also been used to show that peripheral cone development is more advanced than rod development in infants [18]. Foveal cone density, important for precise, detailed vision, increases from 18 cones/100 μm at 1 week postnatal to 42 cones/100 μm in the adult [15]. Cone migration from the retinal periphery to the macula area contributes to the increasing density.

In general, eyeball growth is faster in younger children and slows with age [9,19,20]. A MRI eye study of fetuses and children aged 0–13 years shows a rapid eyeball growth curve in utero and from birth to 18 months [20]. During the emmetropization process, there is an increase in light focusing on the retina as a result of increased axial length of the eyeball, corneal applanation, and reduced lens refraction. This phenomenon explains the relative low hyperopia in infants with short ocular axial length who will become emmetropic adults [16].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Normal visual capability milestones

Visual capability is dependent on normal function of both neurological and ocular components. Evaluation of capability is made by assessing the individual types of vision. These include central vision, stereoscopic (binocular) vision, refraction, color vision, contrast vision, scotopic/photopic (dark/light) vision (retina/rods), and tracking (following and saccades), (retina, oculomotor muscles). Infant visual responses should be compared with those expected in infants with normal visual development.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Abnormal visual development

There is a paucity of data on the prevalence of visual problems in neonates and infants. In a recent observational study carried out in child daycare centers in Canada, of 946 children aged 1.6–11.6 years (mean 4.2 years) screened for functional vision, 14% were found to have a significant vision disorder [1].

Visual problems often have an organic basis or are the result of ocular anomalies, for example malformations, cataracts, glaucoma, and other syndromes, or can be secondary to peri-natal abnormalities (premature birth), or postnatal events (trauma, infections, tumors), or external factors. In the aforementioned study, the main visual problems reported were hyperopia (4.8%), amblyopia (4.7%), and strabismus (4.3%), whereas myopia (1.1%) and anisometropia (1.4%) were relatively uncommon [1].

Studies have demonstrated the existence of sensitive periods during which infants are more vulnerable to visual development anomalies and require normal visual input for normal development; however, the specific timing of the sensitive period of visual development varies depending on the specific aspect of vision being considered [21]. For example, the critical window for normal development of grating acuity is from birth to at least 5 years old, whereas the window is up to approximately 10 years for Snellen acuity, and at least to early teenage years for peripheral vision [21].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Visual deprivation mechanisms

Visual deprivation mechanisms are thought to have a major impact on visual development in neonates because of the impact of visual experience in early life on eyeball growth [16,22–24], neural circuits [25–27], and perceptual and cognitive development [28].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Eyeball growth and increased axial length

In most children, increased axial length results in normal emmetropia because of the fact that most infants are naturally hyperopic at birth. However, in contrast to the normal emmetropization process, visual deprivation such as blurred vision, caused by partial cataract, lack of hyperopia, or myopia for example, leads to increased eyeball growth and excessive increase in axial length (myopic shift), whereas the lens is not affected significantly [22,24]. A vicious circle of visual impairment, increased axial length, and subsequent or increased myopia ensues. Left uncorrected, this leads to further increases in axial length and increasingly severe myopia. In a 1-year study of ocular growth relative to refractive error in 1775 Asian children aged 6–10 years at enrolment, axial growth was faster in younger children and in those with myopia versus emmetropia, that is children with normal vision (P < 0.01), and hyperopia (P < 0.01). Axial length elongation slowed with age in all children regardless of the type of refractive error, and the depth of the anterior chamber deepened by 9 or 10 years and then became shallower by age 12 [19]. The longest axial lengths and deepest anterior chambers were seen in those with myopia. However, Asian populations are naturally genetically determined as myopic (68.6% in this study), which supposes that these children must have been undercorrected, creating blurred vision and increasing myopic shift. In the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Ethnicity and Refractive Error (CLEERE) study investigating refractive error and axial length in children aged 6–14 years at enrolment who became myopic (n = 604) or remained emmetropic (n = 374), those who became myopic had less hyperopia and longer axial lengths than emmetropes, before and after the onset of myopia (P < 0.0001) [16].

A possible mechanism for linking control of the axial length growth rate to vision during the emmetropization process in infants involves stimulation of the dopaminergic system via the retina [29] and secretion of eyeball growth factors [30], although a range of other external factors and biological growth control pathways, including retinoic acid receptors, serotonin, melatonin, and nitric oxide, may also be involved [16].

The impact of form deprivation and imposed defocusing on type of refractive error and ocular shape has been studied in rhesus monkeys. One study showed that, in a similar fashion to humans, form deprivation in infant primates resulted in alteration of the shape of the posterior globe and depth of the vitreous chamber and this influenced the type of peripheral refractive errors observed [23]. Form deprivation and full-field or regional hyperopic defocus results in relative central axial myopia and relative peripheral hyperopia due to specific changes in eyeball shape (reduction in oblate shape). The effects in terms of regional refractive error and changes in ocular shape are dependent on the location of the visual deprivation [31,32]. In a study in infant rhesus monkeys, visual signals from the fovea were shown not to be essential for normal emmetropization or for any changes in ocular growth due to induced form deprivation [33]. In another study conducted in infant rhesus monkeys by the same group, peripheral retina deprivation resulted in a disruption in the emmetropization process characterized by acceleration of axial elongation [34]. In two subsequent studies, experimentally imposed blurring of peripheral vision resulted in changes in the shape and pattern of peripheral refractions in a regionally selective manner, indicating that peripheral hyperopia may play a role in the development of myopia [31,32].

A recently published review on myopia genetics has highlighted the identification of myopia susceptibility genes and the impact of abnormal gene expression in the eye and environmental factors on myopia risk including early-onset myopia in infants [35]. Experimental myopia induced in mice has also been shown to be associated with elongation of the vitreous chamber as in humans and primates [36].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Amblyopia

In infants, prolonged visual deprivation, due to partial or complete obstruction, lack of light stimulus (e.g., cataract), strabismus, or uncorrected difference in refractive error between the two eyes (anisometropia), can result in amblyopia [37–39]. Prolonged uncorrected visual deprivation leads to functional amblyopia, whereas strabismus or cataract can also cause organic amblyopia. Regardless of the etiology, amblyopia is usually unilateral: the visual acuity of one eye is reduced by the dominance of the other eye, and is a common visual impairment in children [1]. Associated symptoms include poor stereoscopic depth perception, poor spatial acuity, low contrast sensitivity, and reduced motion sensitivity; however, despite these symptoms, amblyopia is often diagnosed in routine ocular examination and eye tests, and children (and parents and teachers, etc.) may not be aware of the condition because of compensation by the other eye.

In strabismus, neonates present with permanently or intermittently misaligned eyes (i.e., the visual axes of the eyes are misaligned), which usually self-corrects in the first few months after birth with reduction of accommodation spasms. In some infants, the eyes remain misaligned. The risk of amblyopia is higher in children with esotropic strabismus as this is more likely to be constant, whereas exotropic strabismus tends to be intermittent [27]. Unilateral cataracts in infants can also cause functional deprivation amblyopia in addition to organic amblyopia [39].

Regardless of the original type of visual deprivation, the causal mechanism of functional deprivation amblyopia is the sustained reduced or lack of neural transmission of signals from the impaired eye (binocular competition) to the LGN, leading to atrophy of the neural components involved [27,40,41]. The risk of amblyopia is greatest in infants and young children because of the plasticity of the neurological components of vision and, as it is a problem related to visual development, new-onset amblyopia is extremely rare in adults [27]. Amblyopia is seen in adults, but only persisting as untreated or unresolved amblyopia from childhood.

Fortunately, the plasticity of the developing CNS also means that amblyopia can be reversed if the condition is detected early and the causal visual deprivation is corrected [27], hence the need for early detection and treatment. However, if left untreated, continued visual deprivation can cause permanent morphological changes and atrophy of the LGN leading to permanent amblyopia [27,42].

The risk of amblyopia is increased during the sensitive window in early infancy [12,43]; this appears to correlate with a period of physiological and behavioral changes in visual function due to the initial overgrowth of neural presynaptic and postsynaptic elements in the visual cortex, and subsequent reduction to mature levels [12].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Developmental issues in preterm infants and neonates

Preterm birth is associated with a high risk of visual impairments such as oculomotor and refractive abnormalities [5]. These may be due to early stimulation of an immature visual system (immature eyeball axial length and retinal vascularization), caused by nutritional deficits [44] or secondary to an underlying systemic disease or to complications associated with preterm birth [7].

Refractive anomalies are approximately eight times more common in preterm than in term infants [7,45]. Preterm babies can have retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), which is associated with a failure to emmetropize, resulting in high levels of refractive error, particularly the development of myopia, but the risk of refractive error is also increased in preterm babies without ROP [7,45]. Myopia and strabismus are more prevalent in premature than in full-term babies, particularly those with low birth weight, because the visual system is immature at birth [46].

Although not clearly understood, refractive impairment and myopia in preterm babies is thought to be associated with a range of factors, including increased keratometric value (curvature) of the cornea, decreased depth of the anterior chamber, and higher refractive power of the lens (lens thickness) [45,47]. In a 6-year longitudinal study investigating refractive status in 65 premature Korean infants with and without ROP, myopia was observed to appear at 6 months of age, increasing in severity up to 3 years [45]. Researchers concluded that the main factors associated with increased severity of myopia of prematurity included shallower anterior chambers, thicker lenses, and higher axial lengths, but the corneal curvature was not found to influence myopia [45]. The higher axial length is caused by visual deprivation because of the immaturity of the visual system: blurred vision leading to increased eyeball length [48]. In infants with ROP, severe (or cicatricial, grade 4/5) retinopathy was an independent risk factor for myopia, whereas cryotherapy for ROP did not appear to influence myopia occurrence or severity [45]. In a commentary on the work by Choi et al., Fledelius [47] pointed out that the established main contributory factor in ordinary myopia is increased axial length, whereas, in myopia of prematurity, axial lengths are relatively short, but remain elongated compared to those seen in infants without myopia.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Visual assessment

Screening has been shown to result in reduced risk of ongoing eye problems. In an Israeli study evaluating the efficacy of a mass screening program for amblyopia and associated risk factors in infants, 808 infants systematically screened between the ages of 1 and 2.5 years had a lower rate of amblyopia at 8 years (1.0%), than a control cohort (n = 782) who did not undergo screening in infancy (2.6%; P = 0.0098). Furthermore, the prevalence of amblyopia with visual acuity 20/60 or less in the amblyopic eye was 0.1% in the screened population versus 1.7% in the nonscreened population (P = 0.00026) [49]. Based on these data, screening had a negative predictive value of 99.6% and a positive predictive value of 62.1% [49]. Despite problems in communication and attention, particularly in nonverbal infants, every effort should be made to screen for visual deficits at a few months of age to rule out functional amblyopia, as, at this age, the condition is reversible [50]. The AAP/AAO/AAPOS and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines advocate that visual screening is carried at the level of the primary care doctor with appropriate referral to an ophthalmologist for those at high risk of vision problems or those suspected as having abnormal vision at any stage [3,4,51].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Visual acuity

Evaluation by testing for visual acuity can be performed in newborns (3–12 months), and in preverbal (12–24 months) and verbal infants [52]. Tests include preferential looking and visual tracking tests.

Preferential looking can be tested using static Teller acuity cards [53–55]; forced-choice preferential looking (FPL) or the Bébé vision test [56,57]; and other preferential looking or tracking tests, such as automated testing using computerized infrared oculography, which allows testing in preverbal infants [58]. All methods employ a manual or automated system based on black and white patterns, usually vertical black and white bars or gratings on cards or screen. FPL can be used in neonates up to 6 months and is based on the premise that neonates dislike boring visual stimuli and will tend to look at a pattern rather than a plain display. In FPL, infants are shown a display containing a pattern (the stimulus) and the observer decides where the stimulus is located based on their observation of the infant's head and eye movements [57]. As the highest spatial frequency that can be resolved by a child in preferential looking tests varies with age, the operant preferential looking (OPL) test has been adapted for use as a shorter screening procedure in children from as young as 6 months and up to 3 years by using the appropriate specific diagnostic grating frequency for the age of the child [59]. Dobson et al.[59] demonstrated a specific spatial frequency for each 6-month age group apart from 18 months. Use of specific spatial frequencies means that the test is shorter, more suitable for large-scale screening, and more likely to yield results in the time that a young child can be expected to remain cooperative.

In a study comparing the use of automated visual tracking (using photo-oculography) and preferential looking acuity cards to assess visual acuity in 51 healthy full-term infants from 3 to 93 days of age, the two methods were shown to correlate well with each other; automated visual tracking gave lower visual acuity measurements than preferential looking Teller acuity cards in the first 14 weeks of age [60]. The reduced variation in the range of acuity with the automated procedure may be due to the objective nature of the test compared to the cards or may be due to greater attention, because the automated test uses movement instead of static patterns [60].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Other tests

Visual evoked potential (VEP) testing [61] is used to assess communication between the eye and the brain and has been adapted for use in preverbal infants as an automated test known as sweep VEP [62]. The sweep technique allows VEP to be measured in a few seconds, ensuring that the child's attention can be maintained and stable fixation achieved for a sufficient time to complete the test, even in newborns [62]. However, as the test parameters are subjective and involve lengthy interpretation, sweep VEP is mainly used in the research setting.

ERG is used to assess retinal function by measuring the difference in electrical potential between the anterior eye surface and the face in response to a visual stimulus [63]. The standard for clinical ERG, updated in 2008 by the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (ISCEV) [64], includes testing of rod, cone, and combined rod–cone responses; light-adapted and dark-adapted oscillatory potentials; and flicker [64].

Before any visual evaluation in children, a complete clinical examination should be performed, including examination under cycloplegia, to rule out a major refraction anomaly that needs to be corrected.

In children, testing color vision can be performed mainly using the Ishihara, Farnsworth D15, and other tests, but usually in verbal children (not before age 3). A modified acuity card technique has been used successfully for color vision testing in preschool infants [65]. Testing for stereoscopy can be done at 12 months or earlier using the Lang, Wirt, and TNO tests [66,67].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Nutritional issues

A dietary source of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC PUFAs) is important for visual development in neonates and infants [68–74]. Omega-3 fatty acid (FA) docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and omega-6 FA arachidonic acid (ARA) appear to be important in the development of the ocular and associated neural tissues [71]. LC PUFAs (DHA in particular) are found in the phospholipid layer of neuronal and retinal membranes and are thought to play a role in retinal and visual cortex maturation [72]. Breast-feeding provides regular benefits in terms of visual development, thought to be partly due to the DHA in the breast milk [75–80]. Infant formula supplemented with DHA (1% or 0.05%) and ARA (0.10%) appears to improve visual development in premature infants [44,81], with prolonged benefits of LC PUFA supplementation (DHA 0.36% and ARA 0.72% [NB: the currently available formulation contains ARA 0.6%]) and linear improvement depending on the duration of supplemented milk feeding [72]. Pooled data from four randomized studies were analyzed to investigate the relationship between duration of dietary LC PUFA supplementation of infant formula and visual acuity in 243 term infants. The primary outcome, visual acuity at 52 weeks of age as measured by sweep VEP, showed that longer duration of LC PUFA supply was associated with higher mean acuity (P < 0.001) regardless of whether the LC PUFAs were provided in formula containing 0.36% DHA and 0.72% ARA or in breast milk [72]. These findings suggest that an infant's brain may not have sufficient stores of LC PUFAs to support the optimal maturation of the visual cortex. Other studies in full-term infants have also shown benefits with LC PUFA supplementation (DHA/ARA) in terms of visual acuity and neurodevelopmental outcomes, but others have failed to show significant beneficial effects [82–87]. In a study investigating the effects of maternal DHA supplementation on infant visual function, although the DHA content of breast milk and the DHA plasma concentration in the infant were increased, no benefits in terms of visual function were observed [87]. In a review of studies involving LC PUFA supplementation in full-term infants, none of the individual studies found beneficial or harmful effects of LC PUFA supplementation on vision, irrespective of the type and duration of supplementation, and method of assessment [82].

The benefit of DHA in visual development is reinforced by the European Food Safety Authority statement, which suggests that a formula supplemented with at least 0.3% of total FA as DHA improves visual function at 12 months in term infants (either formula-fed or breast-fed).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conclusion

Problems related to abnormal visual development in infants are common, but their occurrence can be minimized with more widespread use of early screening for visual deprivation and consequential functional amblyopia. Normal visual development is achieved after birth in progressive steps. Abnormal visual development can lead to handicap in adults. Two main pathological mechanisms can occur during a sensitive ‘window’ in early infancy. The mechanism of functional amblyopia is common, leading to a usually unilateral impaired vision, and results from inadequate visual input (organic amblyopia), but can be reversed with early re-education. The second mechanism is that of visual deprivation leading to excessively increased axial length because of blurred vision; this is axial myopia. It is important to be aware of the mechanisms involved in abnormal visual development so that these conditions can be screened for and treated early to prevent long-term or permanent visual deficits. This is particularly important in premature babies. Nutrition plays a key role in visual development, and infant formulas containing the LC PUFAs DHA and ARA found in breast milk may protect nonbreast-fed infants against visual development problems. This is reinforced by the European Food Safety Authority statement, which noted an association between intake of formula supplemented by DHA (at least 0.3%) and visual development at 12 months. Advances in our knowledge of fetal ocular development and imaging technology may allow earlier detection of ocular anomalies.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgements

Medical writing assistance was provided by Mary Hines, from inScience Communications, a Wolters Kluwer business. This assistance was funded by Mead Johnson Nutrition. Other than support received for the preparation of this article, the authors have no financial interest in Mead Johnson Nutrition and its products.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1 Drover JR, Kean PG, Courage ML, Adams RJ. Prevalence of amblyopia and other vision disorders in young Newfoundland and Labrador children. Can J Ophthalmol 2008; 43:89–94.
2 Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Mariotti SP, Pokharel GP. Global magnitude of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive errors in 2004. Bull World Health Organ 2008; 86:63–70.
3 American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine and Section on Ophthalmology, American Association of Certified Orthoptists American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, American Academy of Ophthalmology: Policy Statement Organizational principles to guide and define the child healthcare system and/or improve the health of all children. Eye examination in infants, children, and young adults by pediatricians. Pediatrics 2003; 111:902–907.
4 Policy statement vision screening for infants and children: a Joint Statement of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus and the American Academy of Ophthalmology, vol. 2011. American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2007. pp. 902–907.
5 Birch EE, O'Connor AR. Preterm birth and visual development. Semin Neonatol 2001; 6:487–497.
6 Morgan IG. The biological basis of myopic refractive error. Clin Exp Optom 2003; 86:276–288.
7 Saunders KJ, McCulloch DL, Shepherd AJ, Wilkinson AG. Emmetropisation following preterm birth. Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86:1035–1040.
8 Madan A, Jan JE, Good WV. Visual development in preterm infants. Dev Med Child Neurol 2005; 47:276–280.
9 Bremond-Gignac DS, Benali K, Deplus S, et al. In utero eyeball development study by magnetic resonance imaging. Surg Radiol Anat 1997; 19:319–322.
10 Bremond-Gignac D, Copin H, Elmaleh M, Milazzo S. Fetal ocular anomalies: the advantages of prenatal magnetic resonance imaging. J Fr Ophtalmol 2010; 33:350–354.
11 Paquette LB, Jackson HA, Tavare CJ, et al. In utero eye development documented by fetal MR imaging. Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30:1787–1791.
12 Garey LJ. Structural development of the visual system of man. Hum Neurobiol 1984; 3:75–80.
13 Hendrickson AE. Primate foveal development: a microcosm of current questions in neurobiology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994; 35:3129–3133.
14 Teller DY. Scotopic vision, color vision, and stereopsis in infants. Curr Eye Res 1982; 2:199–210.
15 Yuodelis C, Hendrickson A. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the human fovea during development. Vision Res 1986; 26:847–855.
16 Mutti DO, Hayes JR, Mitchell GL, et al. Refractive error, axial length, and relative peripheral refractive error before and after the onset of myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007; 48:2510–2519.
17 Hansen RM, Moskowitz A, Fulton AB. Multifocal ERG responses in infants. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009; 50:470–475.
18 Hansen RM, Fulton AB. Development of the cone ERG in infants. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46:3458–3462.
19 Wong HB, Machin D, Tan SB, et al. Ocular component growth curves among Singaporean children with different refractive error status. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51:1341–1347.
20 Bremond-Gignac D, Cussenot O, Deplus S, et al. Computation of eyeball growth by magnetic resonance imaging (26 11 93). Surg Radiol Anat 1994; 16:113–115.
21 Lewis TL, Maurer D. Multiple sensitive periods in human visual development: evidence from visually deprived children. Dev Psychobiol 2005; 46:163–183.
22 Sivak JG. The role of the lens in refractive development of the eye: animal models of ametropia. Exp Eye Res 2008; 87:3–8.
23 Huang J, Hung LF, Ramamirtham R, et al. Effects of form deprivation on peripheral refractions and ocular shape in infant rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009; 50:4033–4044.
24 Zhong XW, Ge J, Deng WG, et al. Expression of pax-6 in rhesus monkey of optical defocus induced myopia and form deprivation myopia. Chin Med J (Engl) 2004; 117:722–726.
25 Morishita H, Hensch TK. Critical period revisited: impact on vision. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2008; 18:101–107.
26 Hooks BM, Chen C. Critical periods in the visual system: changing views for a model of experience-dependent plasticity. Neuron 2007; 56:312–326.
27 Barrett BT, Bradley A, McGraw PV. Understanding the neural basis of amblyopia. Neuroscientist 2004; 10:106–117.
28 Maurer D, Mondloch CJ, Lewis TL. Effects of early visual deprivation on perceptual and cognitive development. Prog Brain Res 2007; 164:87–104.
29 Liu J, Pendrak K, Capehart C, et al. Emmetropisation under continuous but nonconstant light in chicks. Exp Eye Res 2004; 79:719–728.
30 Honda S, Fujii S, Sekiya Y, Yamamoto M. Retinal control on the axial length mediated by transforming growth factor-beta in chick eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996; 37:2519–2526.
31 Smith EL 3rd, Hung LF, Huang J, et al. Effects of optical defocus on refractive development in monkeys: evidence for local, regionally selective mechanisms. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51:3864–3873.
32 Smith EL 3rd, Huang J, Hung LF, et al. Hemiretinal form deprivation: evidence for local control of eye growth and refractive development in infant monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009; 50:5057–5069.
33 Smith EL 3rd, Ramamirtham R, Qiao-Grider Y, et al. Effects of foveal ablation on emmetropization and form-deprivation myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007; 48:3914–3922.
34 Smith EL 3rd, Kee CS, Ramamirtham R, et al. Peripheral vision can influence eye growth and refractive development in infant monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46:3965–3972.
35 Hornbeak DM, Young TL. Myopia genetics: a review of current research and emerging trends. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2009; 20:356–362.
36 Tkatchenko TV, Shen Y, Tkatchenko AV. Mouse experimental myopia has features of primate myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51:1297–1303.
37 Hoyt CS. Amblyopia: a neuro-ophthalmic view. J Neuroophthalmol 2005; 25:227–231.
38 Mittelman D. Amblyopia Pediatr. Clin North Am 2003; 50:189–196.
39 Lloyd IC, Ashworth J, Biswas S, Abadi RV. Advances in the management of congenital and infantile cataract. Eye (Lond) 2007; 21:1301–1309.
40 Wiesel TN. Postnatal development of the visual cortex and the influence of environment. Nature 1982; 299:583–591.
41 Hess RF, Thompson B, Gole GA, Mullen KT. The amblyopic deficit and its relationship to geniculo-cortical processing streams. J Neurophysiol 2010; 104:475–483.
42 Tieman SB. Morphological changes in the geniculocortical pathway associated with monocular deprivation. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1991; 627:212–230.
43 Campos E. Amblyopia. Surv Ophthalmol 1995; 40:23–39.
44 Smithers LG, Gibson RA, McPhee A, Makrides M. Higher dose of docosahexaenoic acid in the neonatal period improves visual acuity of preterm infants: results of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2008; 88:1049–1056.
45 Choi MY, Park IK, Yu YS. Long term refractive outcome in eyes of preterm infants with and without retinopathy of prematurity: comparison of keratometric value, axial length, anterior chamber depth, and lens thickness. Br J Ophthalmol 2000; 84:138–143.
46 Page JM, Schneeweiss S, Whyte HE, Harvey P. Ocular sequelae in premature infants. Pediatrics 1993; 92:787–790.
47 Fledelius HC. Retinopathy and myopia of prematurity. Br J Ophthalmol 2000; 84:937.
48 Modrzejewska M, Grzesiak W, Karczewicz D, Zaborski D. Refractive status and ocular axial length in preterm infants without retinopathy of prematurity with regard to birth weight and gestational age. J Perinat Med 2010; 38:327–331.
49 Eibschitz-Tsimhoni M, Friedman T, Naor J, et al. Early screening for amblyogenic risk factors lowers the prevalence and severity of amblyopia. J AAPOS 2000; 4:194–199.
50 Daw NW. Critical periods and amblyopia. Arch Ophthalmol 1998; 116:502–505.
51 Screening for visual impairment in children younger than five years: recommendation statement. Am Fam Physician 2005; 71:333–336.
52 Rovick L. Testing visual acuity in children and nonverbal adults, vol. 2009. Association of Technical Personnel in Ophthalmology; 2009.
53 Preston KL, McDonald M, Sebris SL, et al. Validation of the acuity card procedure for assessment of infants with ocular disorders. Ophthalmology 1987; 94:644–653.
54 Teller DY, McDonald MA, Preston K, et al. Assessment of visual acuity in infants and children: the acuity card procedure. Dev Med Child Neurol 1986; 28:779–789.
55 McDonald MA, Dobson V, Sebris SL, et al. The acuity card procedure: a rapid test of infant acuity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1985; 26:1158–1162.
56 Vital-Durand F, Hullo A. Early evaluation of the vision of infants: baby vision, a reality today. Pediatrie 1988; 43:617–623.
57 Dobson V, Teller DY, Lee CP, Wade B. A behavioral method for efficient screening of visual acuity in young infants. I: Preliminary laboratory development. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1978; 17:1142–1150.
58 Breyer A, Jiang X, Rutsche A, Mojon DS. A new objective visual acuity test: an automated preferential looking. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2003; 220:93–95.
59 Dobson V, Salem D, Mayer DL, et al. Visual acuity screening of children 6 months to 3 years of age. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1985; 26:1057–1063.
60 Lengyel D, Gottlob I. Comparison between grating acuity measured by visual tracking and preferential looking in infants. Strabismus 2003; 11:85–93.
61 Fil'chikova LI, Dubovskaia LA, Kriukovskikh ON, et al. Visual evoked potentials in the evaluation of visual acuity in infants. Vestn Oftalmol 1995; 111:28–30.
62 Norcia AM, Tyler CW. Spatial frequency sweep VEP: visual acuity during the first year of life. Vision Res 1985; 25:1399–1408.
63 Wybar K, Harcourt B. Role of electroretinography in investigation of impaired visual function in childhood. Arch Dis Child 1968; 43:658–664.
64 Marmor MF, Fulton AB, Holder GE, et al. ISCEV Standard for full-field clinical electroretinography (2008 update). Doc Ophthalmol 2009; 118:69–77.
65 Spierer A, Royzman Z, Chetrit A, et al. Vision screening of preverbal children with Teller acuity cards. Ophthalmology 1999; 106:849–854.
66 Braddick OJ, Atkinson J. Some recent findings on the development of human binocularity: a review. Behav Brain Res 1983; 10:141–150.
67 Sansonetti A, Perisset J, Reinhardt M. Screening of vision disorders in young children. Rev Med Suisse Romande 2004; 124:514–516.
68 Agostoni C, Giovannini M. Cognitive and visual development: influence of differences in breast and formula fed infants. Nutr Health 2001; 15:183–188.
69 Eilander A, Hundscheid DC, Osendarp SJ, et al. Effects of n-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation on visual and cognitive development throughout childhood: a review of human studies. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 2007; 76:189–203.
70 Gibson RA, Makrides M. Polyunsaturated fatty acids and infant visual development: a critical appraisal of randomized clinical trials. Lipids 1999; 34:179–184.
71 Uauy R, Hoffman DR, Peirano P, et al. Essential fatty acids in visual and brain development. Lipids 2001; 36:885–895.
72 Morale SE, Hoffman DR, Castaneda YS, et al. Duration of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids availability in the diet and visual acuity. Early Hum Dev 2005; 81:197–203.
73 SanGiovanni JP, Parra-Cabrera S, Colditz GA, et al. Meta-analysis of dietary essential fatty acids and long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids as they relate to visual resolution acuity in healthy preterm infants. Pediatrics 2000; 105:1292–1298.
74 Heird WC. The role of polyunsaturated fatty acids in term and preterm infants and breastfeeding mothers. Pediatr Clin North Am 2001; 48:173–188.
75 Singhal A, Morley R, Cole TJ, et al. Infant nutrition and stereoacuity at age 4–6 y. Am J Clin Nutr 2007; 85:152–159.
76 Birch E, Birch D, Hoffman D, et al. Breast-feeding and optimal visual development. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 1993; 30:33–38.
77 Jorgensen MH, Hernell O, Hughes E, Michaelsen KF. Is there a relation between docosahexaenoic acid concentration in mothers' milk and visual development in term infants? J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2001; 32:293–296.
78 Malcolm CA, McCulloch DL, Montgomery C, et al. Maternal docosahexaenoic acid supplementation during pregnancy and visual evoked potential development in term infants: a double blind, prospective, randomised trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2003; 88:F383–F390.
79 Innis SM, Friesen RW. Essential n-3 fatty acids in pregnant women and early visual acuity maturation in term infants. Am J Clin Nutr 2008; 87:548–557.
80 Innis SM, Gilley J, Werker J. Are human milk long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids related to visual and neural development in breast-fed term infants? J Pediatr 2001; 139:532–538.
81 Fang PC, Kuo HK, Huang CB, et al. The effect of supplementation of docosahexaenoic acid and arachidonic acid on visual acuity and neurodevelopment in larger preterm infants. Chang Gung Med J 2005; 28:708–715.
82 Simmer K, Patole SK, Rao SC. Long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in infants born at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008:CD000376.
83 Birch EE, Castaneda YS, Wheaton DH, et al. Visual maturation of term infants fed long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid-supplemented or control formula for 12 mo. Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 81:871–879.
84 Koo WW. Efficacy and safety of docosahexaenoic acid and arachidonic acid addition to infant formulas: can one buy better vision and intelligence? J Am Coll Nutr 2003; 22:101–107.
85 Wright K, Coverston C, Tiedeman M, Abegglen JA. Formula supplemented with docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA): a critical review of the research. J Spec Pediatr Nurs 2006; 11:100–112, discussion 112–113.
86 Auestad N, Halter R, Hall RT, et al. Growth and development in term infants fed long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids: a double-masked, randomized, parallel, prospective, multivariate study. Pediatrics 2001; 108:372–381.
87 Jensen CL, Prager TC, Zou Y, et al. Effects of maternal docosahexaenoic acid supplementation on visual function and growth of breast-fed term infants. Lipids 1999; 34(Suppl):S225.
Keywords:

amblyopia; DHA; eyeball growth; infant; LC PUFA; ocular embryology; visual acuity; visual deprivation; visual development; visual system

© 2011 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.