In all species studied, myopia develops if the eye is deprived of detailed vision during development (form deprivation myopia). However, different degrees of spatial image deprivation produce different effects and have not been described in the mammalian eye. Therefore, the effect of image degradation on guinea pig emmetropisation was investigated.
Eighty-one guinea pigs wore a treatment on one eye from 6 to 13 days of age. There were four treatments: a translucent diffuser (no lines or edges were visible through the diffuser); one of five Bangerter foils (BF: 0.8, 0.6, 0.4, 0.2, light perception only), which differed in their cut-off spatial frequencies; a 'ring mount' control with no filter; or one of two neutral density filters that reduced luminance only (ND, optical density grades 0.1 and 0.6). Refractive error and ocular elongation were measured after seven days of treatment.
The extent of induced myopia and ocular growth were related to the amount of image degradation (mean difference between the treated and untreated eyes changed in a graded manner -7.0 D to -0.2 D and from 85 µm to seven µm respectively, for spatial frequency cut-offs between zero and 24 cycles per degree). Corresponding reductions in luminance from ND filters did not increase eye growth and caused significantly less myopia than the BFs that caused a similar luminance decrement. The greatest myopia occurred when no or limited spatial information was available to the eye, but moderate myopia still occurred with spatial frequency cut-offs of six and 12 cycles per degree, well beyond the visual acuity range of guinea pigs.
Excessive ocular growth and myopia are most robust when induced by spatial frequency reductions within the visual acuity range but can also be induced beyond this. Either the mechanism of ocular growth can detect supra-threshold spatial frequencies, possibly due to aliasing, or it is sensitive to small amounts of contrast degradation.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 November 2022.
All research outputs
#12,344,472
of 34,361,833 outputs
Outputs from Clinical & Experimental Optometry
#334
of 1,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,500
of 483,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical & Experimental Optometry
#246
of 783 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,361,833 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,079 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 483,384 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 783 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
