Comparison of Objective and Subjective Changes Induced by Multiple-Pinhole Glasses and Single-Pinhole Glasses
Won Soo Kim, In Ki Park, Young Kee Park, Yeoun Sook Chun, Won Soo Kim, In Ki Park, Young Kee Park, Yeoun Sook Chun
Abstract
Multiple-pinhole (MPH) glasses are currently sold in many countries with unproven advertisements; however, their objective and subjective effects have not been investigated. Therefore, to investigate the effects of MPH glasses excluding the single-pinhole (SPH) effect, we compared the visual functional changes, reading speed, and ocular discomfort after reading caused by MPH and SPH glasses. Healthy 36 participants with a mean age of 33.1 years underwent examinations of pupil size, visual acuity (VA), depth of focus (DOF), and near point accommodation (NPA); tests for visual field (VF), contrast sensitivity (CS), stereopsis, and reading speed; and a survey of ocular discomfort after reading. Both types of pinhole glasses enlarged pupil diameter and improved VA, DOF, and NPA. However, CS, stereopsis, and VF parameters deteriorated. In comparison with SPH glasses, MPH glasses induced smaller pupil dilation (5.3 and 5.9 mm, P < 0.001) and showed better VF parameters with preserved peripheral VF. However, no significant difference was observed for VA, DOF, NPA, stereopsis, and CS. Reading speed using pinhole glasses was significantly slower than baseline; SPH glasses showed the slowest reading speed. Both types of glasses caused significant ocular discomfort after reading compared with baseline, and symptoms were worst with MPH glasses. In conclusion, both types of pinhole glasses had positive effects due to the pinhole effect; however, they had negative effects on VF, CS, stereopsis, reading speed, and ocular discomfort. In spite of the increased luminance and preserved peripheral VF with MPHs, these glasses caused more severe ocular discomfort than SPH glasses.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02572544.
Keywords: Pinhole Glasses; Reading Speed; Visual Function.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
© 2017 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.
Figures
References
- Federal Trade Commision (US) Federal Trade Commision File No. 922-3097, 922-3096, 922-3139, and 922-3183. Washington, D.C.: Federal Trade Commission; 1993.
- Kim WS, Park IK, Chun YS. Quantitative analysis of functional changes caused by pinhole glasses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:6679–6685.
- Wittenberg S. Pinhole eyewear systems: a special report. J Am Optom Assoc. 1993;64:112–116.
- Chylack LT, Jr, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, Leske MC, Bullimore MA, Bailey IL, Friend J, McCarthy D, Wu SY. The lens opacities classification system III. The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:831–836.
- Koslowe K, Glassman T, Tzanani-Levi C, Shneor E. Accommodative amplitude determination: pull-away versus push-up method. Optom Vis Dev. 2010;41:28–32.
- Ames SL, Wolffsohn JS, McBrien NA. The development of a symptom questionnaire for assessing virtual reality viewing using a head-mounted display. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82:168–176.
- Berman SM, Fein G, Jewett DL, Ashford F. Luminance-controlled pupil size affects landolt C task performance. J Illum Eng Soc. 1993;22:150–165.
- Watson AB, Yellott JI. A unified formula for light-adapted pupil size. J Vis. 2012;12:12.
- Abdul N, Meyer N, van Bosch M, van Zyl A, Viljoen M, Carlson AS. The effect of pinholes of different sizes on visual acuity under different refracting states and ambient lighting conditions. South Afr Optom. 2009;68:38–48.
- Wang Y, Zhao K, Jin Y, Niu Y, Zuo T. Changes of higher order aberration with various pupil sizes in the myopic eye. J Refract Surg. 2003;19:S270–S274.
- Berman S. The coming revolution in lighting practice. Energy Users News. 2000;25:24–26.
- Doble N, Miller DT, Yoon G, Williams DR. Requirements for discrete actuator and segmented wavefront correctors for aberration compensation in two large populations of human eyes. Appl Opt. 2007;46:4501–4514.
- Campbell FW, Gregory AH. Effect of size of pupil on visual acuity. Nature. 1960;187:1121–1123.
- Tucker J, Charman WN. Depth of focus and accommodation for sinusoidal gratings as a function of luminance. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1986;63:58–70.
- Oshima S. Studies on the depth-of-focus of the eye. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 1958;2:63–72.
- Ripps H, Chin NB, Siegel IM, Breinin GM. The effect of pupil size on accommodation, convergence, and the AC/A ratio. Invest Ophthalmol. 1962;1:127–135.
- Peli E, Arend L, Labianca AT. Contrast perception across changes in luminance and spatial frequency. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 1996;13:1953–1959.
- Rabin J. Luminance effects on visual acuity and small letter contrast sensitivity. Optom Vis Sci. 1994;71:685–688.
- Artal P, Guirao A. Contributions of the cornea and the lens to the aberrations of the human eye. Opt Lett. 1998;23:1713–1715.
- Mehta M, Ramkissoon P, Bhagwanjee AM. A comparison of the effect of reduced illumination and tinted lenses on stereospsis at near. South Afr Optom. 2007;66:3–11.
- Lovasik JV, Szymkiw M. Effects of aniseikonia, anisometropia, accommodation, retinal illuminance, and pupil size on stereopsis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1985;26:741–750.
- Rayner K. Eye movements, perceptual span, and reading disability. Ann Dyslexia. 1983;33:163–173.
- Rubin GS, Turano K. Reading without saccadic eye movements. Vision Res. 1992;32:895–902.
- Ramulu PY, Swenor BK, Jefferys JL, Friedman DS, Rubin GS. Difficulty with out-loud and silent reading in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:666–672.
Source: PubMed