Accuracy and precision of objective refraction from wavefront aberrations
Accuracy and precision of objective refraction from wavefront aberrations
复制标题
DOI：
10.1167/4.4.9
复制
发表时间：
2004-01-01
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Applegate, RA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Thibos, LN;Hong, X;Applegate, RA
我们确定了33个客观方法的准确性和精密度，预测结果的传统，球柱镜屈光波前像差在一个大的人口200只眼。预测散焦的准确度（由预测的总体平均误差指定）在各种方法中从-0.50 D到+0.25 D不等。这些估计值的精密度（由95%一致性限度规定）范围为0.5 - 1.0 D。除一种方法外，所有方法均准确预测散光在+/-1/8D范围内。散光预测的精度通常优于预测散焦的精度，许多方法优于0.5D。波前像差图的近轴曲率匹配是确定等效球镜误差的最准确方法，而波前的最小二乘拟合是最不准确的方法之一。我们认为，这一结果是因为曲率匹配是一个有偏见的方法，成功地预测了传统的折射规定的有偏见的端点。有五种方法相当准确，也是最精确的方法之一。其中三个基于光瞳平面度量，两个基于图像平面度量。我们认为，所有方法的准确性可能会提高本研究中报告的系统性偏倚进行校正。然而，建议谨慎，因为一些任务（包括散焦的常规屈光）需要有偏度量，而其他任务（诸如散光的屈光）是无偏的。我们认为基于波前像差图的客观验光方法可以准确预测主观验光的结果，并且可能更精确。如果客观屈光比主观屈光更精确，则波前方法可能成为用于指定屈光不正的常规和/或最佳矫正的新的黄金标准。
We determined the accuracy and precision of 33 objective methods for predicting the results of conventional, sphero-cylindrical refraction from wavefront aberrations in a large population of 200 eyes. Accuracy for predicting defocus (as specified by the population mean error of prediction) varied from -0.50 D to +0.25 D across methods. Precision of these estimates (as specified by 95% limits of agreement) ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 D. All methods except one accurately predicted astigmatism to within +/-1/8D. Precision of astigmatism predictions was typically better than precision for predicting defocus and many methods were better than 0.5D. Paraxial curvature matching of the wavefront aberration map was the most accurate method for determining the spherical equivalent error whereas least-squares fitting of the wavefront was one of the least accurate methods. We argue that this result was obtained because curvature matching is a biased method that successfully predicts the biased endpoint stipulated by conventional refractions. Five methods emerged as reasonably accurate and among the most precise. Three of these were based on pupil plane metrics and two were based on image plane metrics. We argue that the accuracy of all methods might be improved by correcting for the systematic bias reported in this study. However, caution is advised because some tasks, including conventional refraction of defocus, require a biased metric whereas other tasks, such as refraction of astigmatism, are unbiased. We conclude that objective methods of refraction based on wavefront aberration maps can accurately predict the results of subjective refraction and may be more precise. If objective refractions are more precise than subjective refractions, then wavefront methods may become the new gold standard for specifying conventional and/or optimal corrections of refractive errors.