Visual Psychophysics and Physiological Optics

Statistical Eye Model for Normal Eyes

Jos J. Rozema,1,2 David A. Atchison,3,4 and Marie-José Tassignon1,2

PURPOSE. To create a binocular statistical eye model based on taking accommodation into account. However, as calculations
previously measured ocular biometric data. of light refraction were very time consuming in that period,
METHODS. Thirty-nine parameters were determined for a group this model had to be simplified to be of any practical use (Le
of 127 healthy subjects (37 male, 90 female; 96.8% Caucasian) Grand,2 Emsley3).
with an average age of 39.9 ⫾ 12.2 years and spherical equiv- With the increased availability of computers from the
alent refraction of ⫺0.98 ⫾ 1.77 D. These parameters de- 1970s onward the practical problems of calculation inten-
scribed the biometry of both eyes and the subjects’ age. Miss- siveness became less important. Advancing technology facil-
ing parameters were complemented by data from a previously itated researchers in improving their eye models so that they
published study. After confirmation of the Gaussian shape of would better match the clinical data. These improvements
their distributions, these parameters were used to calculate included a curved retina, aspheric surfaces (Lotmar,4 Kooi-
their mean and covariance matrices. These matrices were then jman,5 Navarro6), gradient index crystalline lenses (Liou and
used to calculate a multivariate Gaussian distribution. From Brennan,7 Siedlecki et al.,8 Goncharov and Dainty9), chro-
this, an amount of random biometric data could be generated, matic dispersion (Thibos et al.,10 Navarro6), and a consider-
which were then randomly selected to create a realistic pop- ation of peripheral imaging (Pomerantzeff et al.,11 Escudero-
ulation of random eyes. Sanz and Navarro 12 ). Furthermore, eye models were
RESULTS. All parameters had Gaussian distributions, with the proposed by Atchison et al.13 that included the effects of
exception of the parameters that describe total refraction (i.e., aging and myopia.14 For some of these models, quantitative
three parameters per eye). After these non-Gaussian parame- comparisons of optical properties, such as wavefront aber-
ters were omitted from the model, the generated data were ration, modulation transfer function, and Strehl ratio can be
found to be statistically indistinguishable from the original data found in the literature.15,16
for the remaining 33 parameters (TOST [two one-sided t tests]; Even though step-by-step these models have come closer to
P ⬍ 0.01). Parameters derived from the generated data were the performance of a real eye, most are still rotationally sym-
also significantly indistinguishable from those calculated with metrical, idealized representations that do not take the wide
the original data (P ⬎ 0.05). The only exception to this was the variations in ocular biometry that exist in the general popula-
lens refractive index, for which the generated data had a tion into account.17
significantly larger SD.
One way to include these variations is in the form of
CONCLUSIONS. A statistical eye model can describe the biometric customizable eye models, as proposed by Navarro et al.18 for
variations found in a population and is a useful addition to the phakic eyes and by Rosales and Marcos19 for pseudophakic
classic eye models. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52: eyes. These models incorporate clinically measured biomet-
4525– 4533) DOI:10.1167/iovs.10-6705 ric data to predict the total wavefront error of an eye, which
was found to work well for the pseudophakic eye models,
S ince they were first introduced approximately 150 years
ago, eye models have become an indispensable tool in
physiological optics. Their simplified layouts of the ocular
but not always well in the phakic models. This difference in
success could be explained by the lack of customized knowl-
edge of the shape and in vivo refractive index of the crys-
refractive surfaces allow quick calculations of how light passes
talline lens in these individual eyes.18 Instead average values
though the eye, from which many valuable insights have been
obtained over the years. for these crystalline lens parameters were used that did not
The most famous eye model was the “No. 1” or “exact” eye necessarily match physiological values in those eyes. More-
proposed by Gullstrand1 in 1909. Its layout closely approxi- over customized crystalline lens models calculated by sub-
mated that of a real eye, simulating the gradient refractive tracting corneal wavefront aberrations from total wavefront
index of the crystalline lens by means of a shell structure and aberrations cannot yet be verified independently. These
limitations may be overcome in the very near future with the
recent introduction of ocular wavefront tomography20,21and
anterior segment OCT,22,23 both of which provide very
From the 1Department of Ophthalmology, Antwerp University detailed information on the refracting surfaces in the eye
Hospital, Edegem, Belgium; the 2Department of Medicine, Antwerp and refractive index distribution.
University, Wilrijk, Belgium; and the 3School of Optometry and 4Insti-
tute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of In this work, we chose an alternative method that uses
Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. descriptive statistics as a basis to generate a large number of
Supported by an ESCRS research grant (2006) and an unrestricted virtual eyes with plausible biometry. These eyes can then
PhD grant provided by Transitions Optical. serve as a basis for further statistical calculations. Such an
Submitted for publication October 11, 2010; revised January 28 approach was first proposed by Thibos et al.24 as a way to
and March 7, 2011; accepted March 16, 2011. generate sets of realistic wavefronts using Zernike coeffi-
Disclosure: J.J. Rozema, Transitions Optical (F); D.A. Atchison,
Transitions Optical (F); M.-J. Tassignon, Transitions Optical (F)
cients.
Corresponding author: Jos J. Rozema, Department of Ophthalmol- The goal of this work is to continue the basic idea of Thibos
ogy, Antwerp University Hospital, Wilrijkstraat 10, 2650 Edegem, Bel- et al. in the form of a binocular, statistical eye model for normal
gium; [email protected]. eyes.

Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, June 2011, Vol. 52, No. 7
Copyright 2011 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc. 4525

Downloaded from iovs.arvojournals.org on 12/05/2022

 4526 Rozema et al. IOVS, June 2011, Vol. 52, No. 7

METHODS ent ocular biometric parameters,26 –30 this covariance matrix C should
contain only non-0 elements.
Subjects
Model Parameters
In this work, we used the binocular biometric data of 127 healthy
In this work we started from a set of 39 parameters including the
subjects (37 male, 90 female; 123 Caucasian, 4 non-Caucasian) that
subject’s age, the total ocular refraction (RefM, RefJ0, RefJ45) written in
were measured in the framework of Project Gullstrand, a European
the form of Thibos’ Fourier power vectors,31 the anterior keratom-
multicenter study to determine the correlation between ocular biom-
etry (KA,M, KA,J0, KA,J45), the anterior corneal eccentricity EccA, the
etry and several psychophysical tests. The subjects included in the
posterior keratometry (KP,M, KP,J0, KP,J45) and eccentricity EccP, the cen-
Belgian part of the study were mostly employees of the Antwerp
tral corneal thickness Pachy, the anterior chamber depth ACD, the anterior
University Hospital.
and posterior curvature of the crystalline lens (RLA, RLP), the crystalline
Subjects were between 22.3 and 78.6 years old and without any
lens thickness T, the crystalline lens power PL, the ocular axial length L,
previous ocular pathology or surgery. The subjects were excluded if
and the scotopic pupil size SP.
they had a refraction outside the range of (⫺10 to ⫹10 D), a corrected
As the Project Gullstrand data did not contain the lens thickness
visual acuity less than 20/20, as measured with an ETDRS logMAR
parameter, it was not possible to calculate the crystalline lens power
chart, or intraocular pressure higher than 22 mm Hg, as measured with
directly using ray tracing or Bennett’s formula.32 Instead the lens
a noncontact tonometer (Ocular Response Analyzer [ORA]; Reichert
power was estimated using the T2 formula,33 an updated version of the
Inc. Buffalo, NY, USA.). Other exclusion criteria were the wearing of
SRK/T formula.34 However, rather than the phakic lens power, this
hard contact lenses less than 1 month before testing and pregnancy.
procedure provides an estimate of the pseudophakic lens power re-
The study adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and
quired to obtain a certain preset refraction after cataract surgery.
received approval of the ethics committee of the Antwerp University
To remedy this problem we used the emmetropic group to find the
Hospital (Ref. 7/6/24). Signed informed consent was obtained from
correlation between the crystalline lens power calculated with the
participating subjects before testing.
Bennett formula (PBennett), as well as the pseudophakic lens power
Since the Project Gullstrand data did not contain any biometry of
using the T2 formula (PT2). Through reduced major axis regression we
the crystalline lens, these values had to be included in the model in a
found the following relationship: PBennett ⫽ 1.133 PT2 ⫺ 1.386 (r2 ⫽
different way. For this purpose, we used the age-related biometry data
0.922). Inserting PT2 into this formula allows an estimate of the real
published by Atchison et al.13 for a group of 66 eyes of 66 em-
crystalline lens power to be made. Even though in individual cases the
metropes (32 men, 34 women; 62 Caucasian, 4 non-Caucasian) with a
calculated crystalline lens power may deviate from the actual crystal-
refraction between ⫾0.75 D and ages between 19 and 69.3 years.
line lens power, the calculated average and covariance values of the
These data will henceforth be referred to as the emmetropic data.
population would be correct.
In both data sets, the subjects were not cyclopleged before the
Since the biometric parameters of left and right eyes are strongly
measurements, to remain as close as possible to the everyday physio-
correlated (see the Results section), combining both eyes of the same
logical condition of the eye.
subject into the calculations may have a considerable influence on the
covariance values in matrix C. Although the use of a linear mixed-
MATERIALS effects model would account for such correlations, a different ap-
proach was chosen here. By including the biometry of right and left
The biometric equipment used to measure the required parameters eyes into M and C separately, one has the opportunity to create a
were an autorefractometer (ARK-700; Nidek, Gamagori, Japan) for ob- binocular eye model that leaves the correlation between both eyes
jective refraction; a Scheimpflug camera (Pentacam; Oculus Optik- intact for these parameters. Including this binocular aspect would
geräte, Wetzlar, Germany) for anterior and posterior keratometry, introduce several interesting options, such as the study of aniseikonia
pachymetry, and the anterior chamber depth; an ocular biometer (IOL- and anisometropia.
Master, ver. 2; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) for axial length; and As mentioned above, the mean and covariance values for the
an aberrometer (iTrace; Tracey Technologies, Houston, TX) for sco- anterior and posterior curvature of the crystalline lens (RLA, RLP) and
topic pupil size after 5 minutes of dark adaptation. From these data, the the crystalline lens thickness T were taken from the emmetropic data
crystalline lens power was estimated using the procedure described set. With the exception of the scotopic pupil size SP, the emmetropic
below. data set contained all the model parameters included in the covariance
In the emmetropic data set, the curvatures of the anterior and matrix C. Hence most of the covariances between the lens parame-
posterior lens surfaces were obtained by analyzing Purkinje images,25 ters (RLA, RLP, T) and the other parameters could be inserted. However,
and A-scan ultrasonography was used to find the lens thickness. the emmetropic data set did not include binocular information, so the
covariance values between the lens parameters and the other param-
Multivariate Gaussian Model eters had to be used for both left and right eyes. Covariance values that
The model presented in this article is based on the idea that if a could not be determined were given the default value of 10⫺5.
parameter is known to have a Gaussian (or normal) distribution and In practice, it proved to be necessary to slightly increase the
the mean and standard deviation of this distribution are known, one covariance values between the KA,M, PL, and L parameters for both
can easily generate a large number of random values with the same eyes, to obtain a more realistic correlation between the eyes. Example
distribution for this parameter by means of a software program. of the M and C matrices used in this work are given in the Appendix
Similarly, one can generate random values for a set of n normally for the monocular version of the model (right eyes only).
distributed parameters x if the mean values of these parameters and the One drawback of randomly generating a set of biometric parame-
covariance values between these parameters are known. Then the ters in this fashion is that, even though the values of the individual
multivariate Gaussian distribution is given by: parameters are realistic and the correlations between them are correct,
the parameters defining ocular refraction (i.e., KA,M, PL, and L) would

冋 册
not add up to the value of RefM that was randomly generated by the
1 1
f x (x) ⫽ exp ⫺ (x⫺M)⬘C ⫺1(x⫺M) (1) model. In a healthy real eye on the other hand the refraction calculated
(2␲)k/2 C 1/2
2 from the biometry and the measured refraction would match very
closely. This problem can be solved by using ray tracing,35 to calculate
with M a (1 ⫻ N) vector describing the mean values of the parameters the refraction along the meridians of maximum and minimum corneal
and C a (N ⫻ N) matrix containing the covariance values between the curvature, from which the resultant spherical and cylindrical refraction
parameters. As there are many known correlations between the differ- may be derived.

Downloaded from iovs.arvojournals.org on 12/05/2022

 IOVS, June 2011, Vol. 52, No. 7 Statistical Eye Model for Normal Eyes 4527

TABLE 1. Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for the Normality of the Data

Right Eye Left Eye

Parameter Unit n Mean (SD) KS* Mean (SD) KS* Pearson r

Age Age y 127 39.88 (12.20) 0.177 — — —

Refraction RefM D 127 ⫺0.98 (2.00) 0.002 ⫺0.98 (2.14) 0.004 0.931
Ref10 D 127 0.04 (0.28) 0.433 0.09 (0.37) 0.008 0.688
R145 D 127 ⫺0.04 (0.19) 0.246 ⫺0.02 (0.18) 0.103 ⫺0.310
Anterior keratometry KA,M D 127 43.29 (1.36) 0.936 43.32 (1.40) 0.478 0.973
KA, J0 D 127 0.30 (0.28) 0.811 0.31 (0.31) 0.214 0.654
KA, J45 D 127 0.06 (0.23) 0.268 ⫺0.13 (0.24) 0.439 ⫺0.515
Anterior corneal eccentricity EccA 127 0.403 (0.175) 0.070 0.36 (0.20) 0.280 0.694
Posterior keratometry KP,M D 127 ⫺6.26 (0.22) 0.851 ⫺6.28 (0.23) 0.601 0.957
KP,J0 D 127 ⫺0.17 (0.07) 0.587 ⫺0.15 (0.07) 0.670 0.577
KP,J45 D 127 0.00 (0.06) 0.102 0.02 (0.05) 0.602 ⫺0.278
Posterior corneal eccentricity EccP 127 0.15 (0.28) 0.491 0.09 (0.32) 0.225 0.660
Anterior lens curvature† RLA mm 66 10.43 (1.400 0.925 10.43 (1.40) 0.925 —
Posterior lens curvature† RLA mm 66 ⫺6.86 (0.85) 0.525 ⫺6.86 (0.85) 0.525 —
Lens thickness† T mm 66 4.07 (0.35) 0.232 4.07 (0.35) 0.232 —
Lens power PL D 127 22.99 (2.14) 0.247 23.04 (2.26) 0.117 0.953
Pachymetry Pachy mm 127 0.0545 (0.032) 0.726 0.55 (0.03) 0.960 0.945
Anterior chamber depth ACD mm 127 2.87 (0.38) 0.964 2.88 (0.38) 0.984 0.989
Axial length L mm 127 23.67 (1.12) 0.745 23.64 (1.16) 0.772 0.965
Scotopic pupil size SP mm 127 6.51 (1.12) 0.805 6.43 (1.13) 0.949 0.924

* KS, one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. P ⬍ 0.01. Bold indicates a significant difference.

† Taken fron the emmetropic data13; the same values were used for left and right eyes.

However, this process leads to a refraction with a Gaussian distribu- power vectors, as proposed by Thibos et al.31 The notation (RefM,
tion (see the Results section), which does not correspond with reality. It RefJ0, RefJ45), (KA,M, KA,J0, KA,J45), and (KP,M, KP,J0, KP,J45) was chosen
is therefore necessary to filter the generated data in such a way that both rather than the more commonly used sphere, cylinder, and axis com-
distributions will match each other more closely. The filtering was ponents, because they form orthogonal sets of additive vector compo-
achieved by dividing both the original and the random refraction data of nents. The required conversion formulas between both components
the right eyes into bins of 1 D according to their refraction. Next, eyes were published by Thibos et al.31
were removed randomly from the bins of the generated data until the
overall distribution matched that of the original data. This reduced the The Crystalline Lens
amount of usable generated data by a factor of 4 to 5. The radii of curvature (RLA, RLP), the thickness T, and the power of the
After exclusion of the refractive parameters (i.e., RefM, RefJ0, RefJ45 for crystalline lens PL are all randomly generated by the multivariate
each eye), 33 parameters were included in the following calculations. model. Therefore, if PL is calculated from RLA, RLP, and T, and a fixed
value for the crystalline lens refractive index nL is assumed, the calcu-
Transforming Keratometry and Refraction into lated value will not necessarily correspond with the generated value
Fourier Power Vectors for PL. This mismatch can be eliminated by calculating a value for the
Before the calculation of the covariance matrix C, the refraction and
the keratometry of the original data were transformed into Fourier

FIGURE 2. Distribution of the positions of the posterior corneal sur-

face (1), the anterior and posterior crystalline lens surfaces (2, 3), and
FIGURE 1. Distribution of the spherical equivalent refraction calcu- the retina (4) along the optical axis with respect to the corneal apex.
lated with the SRK/T formula using the unfiltered generated data in Generated data included 1000 right eyes; original data included 127
comparison with a smoothed distribution of the original data. Gener- right eyes. The peaks corresponding with the posterior cornea could
ated data included 5000 right eyes; original data included 127 right not be shown in this scale. Instead the maximum peak values were
eyes. given (respectively, 86% and 89%).

Downloaded from iovs.arvojournals.org on 12/05/2022

 4528 Rozema et al. IOVS, June 2011, Vol. 52, No. 7

refractive index nL that balances out all these lens parameters by means Finally, the aniseikonia of a pair of eyes can be calculated using the
of the following equation, which was derived from the thick-lens formulas proposed by Gobin et al.38
formula36:
Statistics
n(T⫹A)⫹0.001P Lr LAr LP⫺ 冑[n(T⫹A)⫹0.001P LR LAR LP]2⫺4Tn 2A All comparisons between original and generated data were done with the
nL ⫽
2A Student’s t-test. However, as the lack of a statistically significant difference
(2) does not necessarily mean the equivalence of both populations, the TOST
procedure39,40 (two one-sided t tests) was also performed. This procedure
with n ⫽ nA ⫽ nV ⫽ 1.336, respectively, the refractive indices of the defines a certain range of acceptance (⫺⌰, ⫹⌰) around the difference
aqueous (nA) and vitreous (nV) and A ⫽ T ⫺ RLA ⫹ RLP. between the means of both populations and compares this with a 99%
confidence interval. In case of equivalence of both populations this
Parameters Derived from Generated Data 99% confidence interval should completely fall within the range of
acceptance. Note that this range of acceptance is not equivalent to
Based on these randomly generated biometry data, other parameters what would be clinically acceptable (all calculations performed with
can be derived, such as the vitreal depth V: MatLab 6; The MathWorks, Natick, MA, and Excel 2003, Microsoft
Corp., Redmond, WA).
V ⫽ L ⫺ ACD ⫺ T ⫺ Pachy. (3)

The conic constants of the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces RESULTS
can be calculated from the corneal eccentricity as follows37:
Verification of the Conversion from
Conic ⫽ 1 ⫺ Ecc2 (4) Pseudophakic to Crystalline Lens Power
In an effort to confirm the conversion from pseudophakic to
and the corneal radii of curvature are given by crystalline lens power, described earlier in the model parameters
section, the conversion was applied to previously published bio-
R CA ⫽ 337.2/K A and R CP ⫽ (1337.2 ⫺ 1378)/K P. (5) metric data for a group of 117 myopic and emmetropic

FIGURE 3. Comparison of the generated data (1000 right eyes) with the original data (127 right eyes) for (a) spherical equivalent refraction, (b)
mean keratometry, (c) internal anterior chamber depth, and (d) crystalline lens power, plotted as a function of axial length.

Downloaded from iovs.arvojournals.org on 12/05/2022

 IOVS, June 2011, Vol. 52, No. 7 Statistical Eye Model for Normal Eyes 4529

eyes14 (44 men, 73 women; 99 Caucasian, 18 non-Caucasian; tion of the original data. After the data of the right eyes are
refraction range, ⫺12.38 to 0.75 D; age range (18 –36 years). filtered, both distributions are identical (Fig. 1).
Comparing the crystalline lens power, calculated with the
Bennett formula, with lens power obtained from the conver- Comparison of Original and Generated Data
sion of the T2 formula, generated a high correlation coeffi-
Figure 2 shows the position distributions of the posterior
cient (r ⫽ 0.806). We therefore felt it safe to use the conver-
cornea surface, the anterior and posterior lens surfaces, and
sion in the following.
the retina, with respect to the corneal apex for both the
original and the generated data. The data sets match very
Mean Values of the Original Data well.
The mean values and standard deviations of the parameters As an illustration, Figure 3 shows the spherical equivalent
used in the model are given in Table 1 for both left and right refraction, the mean anterior keratometry, the anterior cham-
eyes. ber depth, and the crystalline lens power plotted as a function
of axial length. It can be seen that both the original and
Normality of Parameters generated data sets match each other very well. The same is
found for any other combination of parameters, including
First a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test was performed on
subject age. A small monocular sample of these generated data
each of the parameters to ensure that the initial data follow
can also be found in the Appendix.
Gaussian distributions. As shown in Table 1, no Gaussian
When comparing the original and generated datasets using
distribution was found for several of the refraction parame-
unpaired t tests, no statistically significant differences were
ters of both left and right eyes (RefM, OD; RefM, OS; RefJ0,
found for any of the 33 parameters (Table 2). This finding was
OS). Note that a significance level of P ⬍ 0.01 was used
confirmed by the TOST procedure, which demonstrated that
instead of the customary P ⬍ 0.05 to avoid the effects of ␣
for all parameters, the original and generated data are equiva-
inflation caused by the large number of KS tests per-
lent, using a 99% confidence interval (Table 2).
formed (Bonferroni correction).
Table 3 compares the mean and standard deviation of each
As the KS values of the refraction parameters (RefM, RefJ0)
of the generated parameters, with the original data in the form
are low (i.e., around or below P ⫽ 0.01), we decided not to
of an averaged eye model. Again, no significant differences
include the refraction parameters in the model. With this in
were found between both data sets.
mind, we will assume in the following that a multivariate
Gaussian function will provide an adequate base for our model.
For most of the parameters in Table 1 strong correlations
Refractive Index of the Crystalline Lens
are seen between left and right eyes (i.e., most Pearson corre- The mean crystalline lens refractive index nL for the generated
lation coefficients r ⬎ 0.5). The only exceptions to this are data was 1.432 ⫾ 0.013 (1000 right eyes), and that of the
parameters RefJ45 and KP,J45, for which no strong correlation emmetropic data was 1.431 ⫾ 0.010 (66 eyes). The mean
was expected. values of both data sets were not significantly different (un-
paired t-test: P ⫽ 0.760); however, the SD of the generated data
Effect of Refraction Filtering were significantly larger than that of the original data (Levene
test, P ⫽ 0.007; Fig. 4).
By inserting the mean and covariance matrices M and C into
formula,1 we generated a random data set, which we then used
to calculate the refraction of each generated eye by means of
Anisometropia and Aniseikonia
the SRK/T formula. As shown in Figure 1, this process results The anisometropia of the original data was not normally dis-
in a Gaussian distribution, which does not match the distribu- tributed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, P ⬍ 0.001), whereas the

TABLE 2. Results of the TOST Procedure for Equivalence between Generated Data
and the Original Data

Right Eye Left Eye

Parameter Unit P* RoA, ⴚ⌰, ⴙ⌰ 99% CI P* RoA, [ⴚ⌰, ⴙ⌰] 99% CI

Age y 0.254 ⫺9.73, 9.73 ⫺5.27 to 2.05 — — —

KA,M D 0.898 ⫺1.08, 1.08 ⫺0.40 to 0.45 0.524 ⫺1.12, 1.12 ⫺0.33 to 0.55
KA,J0 D 0.527 ⫺0.22, 0.22 ⫺0.07 to 0.12 0.804 ⫺0.25, 0.25 ⫺0.12 to 0.10
KA,J45 D 0.833 ⫺0.18, 0.18 ⫺0.08 to 0.07 0.567 ⫺0.18, 0.18 ⫺0.09 to 0.06
EccA 0.503 ⫺0.14, 0.14 ⫺0.04 to 0.07 0.731 ⫺0.16, 0.16 ⫺0.06 to 0.07
KP,M D 0.786 ⫺0.18, 0.18 ⫺0.06 to 0.08 0.768 ⫺0.19, 0.19 ⫺0.07 to 0.08
KP,J0 D 0.829 ⫺0.06, 0.06 ⫺0.03 to 0.02 0.915 ⫺0.05, 0.05 ⫺0.02 to 0.02
KP,J45 D 0.493 ⫺0.05, 0.05 ⫺0.03 to 0.02 0.309 ⫺0.04, 0.04 ⫺0.01 to 0.03
EccP 0.363 ⫺0.22, 0.22 ⫺0.13 to 0.06 0.872 ⫺0.25, 0.25 ⫺0.10 to 0.11
RLA mm 0.889 ⫺1.12, 1.12 ⫺0.48 to 0.42 0.728 ⫺1.12, 1.12 ⫺0.50 to 0.36
RLP mm 0.824 ⫺0.68, 0.68 ⫺0.30 to 0.24 0.352 ⫺0.68, 0.68 ⫺0.15 to 0.39
T mm 0.065 ⫺0.28, 0.28 ⫺0.26 to 0.07 0.125 ⫺0.28, 0.28 ⫺0.22 to 0.09
PL D 0.642 ⫺2.09, 2.09 0.14 to 1.83 0.654 ⫺2.20, 2.20 0.12 to 1.88
Patchy mm 0.961 ⫺0.03, 0.03 ⫺0.01 to 0.01 0.639 ⫺0.03, 0.03 ⫺0.01 to 0.01
ACD mm 0.863 ⫺0.30, 0.30 ⫺0.12 to 0.14 0.638 ⫺0.30, 0.30 ⫺0.10 to 0.14
L mm 0.294 ⫺0.89, 0.89 ⫺0.48 to 0.21 0.249 ⫺0.92, 0.92 ⫺0.51 to 0.20
SP mm 0.093 ⫺0.89, 0.89 ⫺0.13 to 0.61 0.145 ⫺0.90, 0.90 ⫺0.16 to 0.58

n ⫽ 127 pairs of eyes for both sets.

* Unpaired t test.

Downloaded from iovs.arvojournals.org on 12/05/2022

 4530 Rozema et al. IOVS, June 2011, Vol. 52, No. 7

1.432 (0.013)

1.432 (0.014)
Model

1.376*
1.336*

1.336*

1.378*

1.336*
Refractive Index

1.431† (0.010)

1.431† (0.010)
1.376*
1.336*

1.336*

1.378*

1.336*
Data

0.546 (0.035)

0.551 (0.034)
2.85 (0.39)

4.14 (0.57)
16.21 (1.03)

2.87 (0.39)

4.10 (0.57)
16.21 (1.05)
Model
Thickness (mm)

FIGURE 4. Refractive index of the crystalline lens for both the gener-
0.545 (0.032)

0.549 (0.032)
2.87 (0.38)

4.07† (0.35)
16.15‡ (1.15)

2.88 (0.38)

4.07† (0.35)
16.12‡ (1.16)

ated data (1000 right eyes) and the emmetropic data (66 eyes).
Data

aniseikonia was normally distributed (P ⫽ 0.147). However,

both distributions of the generated data appear to roughly
match that of the original data (Fig. 5).
0.813 (0.144)
0.887 (0.145)

0.829 (0.148)
0.883 (0.160)
Model

DISCUSSION
Model-generated data: n ⫽ 1000 pairs of eyes; the original data: n ⫽ 127 pairs of eyes. Data are the mean (SD).
Coni Constant

The results show that a statistical eye model can generate a

large amount of realistic biometric data that are indistinguish-
able from the original data, while maintaining all correlations
0.807 (0.125)
0.900 (0.138)

0.833 (0.127)
0.892 (0.155)

between the various biometric parameters, including subject

Data

age. The generated data can serve a large number of purposes,

such as statistical analysis, intraocular lens design, and optical
calculations.
The main advantage of this model is that it takes the large
physiological variability between subjects into account in a
7.82 (0.24)
6.45 (0.22)

10.37 (1.40)
⫺6.85 (0.90)

7.82 (0.25)
6.44 (0.24)

10.39 (1.34)
⫺6.87 (0.89)

very simple and elegant manner. This in contrast with the

‡ Calculated using formula (2), and a regression of T(age) given in Reference 13.
Model

majority of eye models in the literature that use only one single
⫺12

⫺12

set of biometry values to represent an idealized eye.

Radius (mm)

The manner in which the refraction is defined in this model

is also physiological, in the sense that the generated ocular
biometry is used to calculate the total refraction of the eye,
TABLE 3. Comparison of Model-Generated Data and the Original Data

7.81 (0.25)
6.44 (0.23)

10.43† (1.40)
⫺6.86† (0.85)

7.80 (0.26)
6.43 (0.24)

10.43† (1.40)
⫺6.86† (0.85)

much in the same way as in a real eye. This choice for this
approach resulted from the non-Gaussian distribution of the
Data

⫺12

⫺12

refraction.
This method may also be used to calculate the matrices M
and C for other population studies and to compare these
directly with the current data.
† Values taken from the emmetropic data set.13

In a way, the model may also present a method of data

6.47 (1.07)

6.40 (1.06)

compression, since the N ⫻ 33 matrix containing the original

Model

data is reduced to the 33 ⫻ 1 vector M, the 33 ⫻ 33 matrix C,

Diameter (mm)

and the mean refraction distribution. For larger original data

sets (i.e., a large N), this advantage becomes more apparent.
* Values taken from Gullstrand.1

However, it is valid only if all parameters included are normally

6.51 (1.12)

6.43 (1.09)

distributed.
Data

There are also a number of limitations to the method that

should be kept in mind. First, model data generated in this
manner are only as good as the original data that they are is
based on. One example of this is the imbalance between the
sexes in our original data, with 70% female and 30% male
Posterior cornea

Posterior cornea
Anterior cornea

Anterior cornea

subjects. As female subjects are known to have shorter eyes

Posterior lens

Posterior lens
Anterior lens

Anterior lens
Pupil (stop)

Pupil (stop)
Surface

than males, as well as steeper anterior corneal radii, higher

crystalline lens powers, and a higher refractive index of the
Right eyes

Left eyes
Retina

Retina

crystalline lens,13,29,41 some of the parameters generated by

the model may have slightly different values than if a balanced
male:female population had been used. Another example is the

Downloaded from iovs.arvojournals.org on 12/05/2022

 IOVS, June 2011, Vol. 52, No. 7 Statistical Eye Model for Normal Eyes 4531

FIGURE 5. Distribution of anisometropia (a) and aniseikonia (b) in 1000 pairs of eyes generated by the statistical model, compared with the
prevalence in the original data (127 eyes).

average spherical equivalent refraction of ⫺0.98 D in the orig- between both distributions could be resolved by adding a
inal data, which is more myopic than the emmetropia or slight second filtering of the generated eyes using nL as the filter-
hyperopia that other studies reported in the literature.29,41 ing parameter.
This discrepancy may be the result of a difference in demo- In a later stage, the current model may be expanded
graphics of the various study populations and will cause the further to include other ocular biometric parameters of
model to generate slightly longer eyes than when more hyper- interest, such as the tilt and centration of the various optical
opic eyes are included. interfaces of the eye or the shape of their surfaces in the
The mean and SD values of the generated data were found form of Zernike polynomials. However care must be taken of
to be equivalent to the original data for all parameters. As the the way such additions are introduced into a statistical
SD depends largely on the sample size used, it is therefore model, as illustrated (e.g., by McLellan et al.44 for random-
important to use an original data set of sufficient size. ized signs of Zernike coefficients). Moreover, if the binocu-
Second, the original data for this work did not contain any
lar model described above is expanded, care must be taken
phakometric data (i.e., on the parameters RLA, RLP, and T). The
that parameters are included only if they have a high corre-
absence of such data was remedied by including the mean and
lation between left and right eyes, which would exclude
covariance values from the age-related biometry data of the
emmetropic data set.13 As this process involved combining parameters such as (e.g., the Stiles Crawford effect45) or
two separate data sets, one of which contained only em- transverse chromatic aberrations.46,47
metropes, we may have introduced an error into the model.
However, as the emmetropic set contained almost all the Acknowledgments
parameters used in this work, we believe the error due to
combining these two data sets is negligible. Any error due to The authors thank Nadia Zakaria, Jeroen Claeys, and Greet Vandeweyer
using phakometric data from a group of emmetropes to repre- for support in collecting the data and Kristien Wauters for help with
sent the phakometry of a group containing both emmetropes the statistics.
and ametropes is probably also negligible, as the correlation
between the lens thickness T and refraction has been shown to
be either nonsignificant14,42 or very weak.27,43 For this reason
we also assumed that RLA and RLP would not show any signif-
APPENDIX
icant changes as a function of refraction. However, this con-
clusion remains to be confirmed. The matrices M and C required for generating monocular data
A possible issue with the emmetropic data set is that it for right eyes are given in Tables A1 and A2. These are to be
contained data of only one eye per subject, whereas the inserted into equation 1. Note that the generated data fX(x)
model presented in this article is binocular. This should also may have complex values, because C is composed of contri-
not pose a problem, since for all ocular biometric parame- butions from two separate data sets. In that case
ters there is a very strong correlation between both eyes (Ta- sign{re[fX(x)]}䡠 fX(x) may be used instead without any signif-
ble 1, last column). icant difference in the result.
Finally, the standard deviation of the calculated refractive An example of randomly generated emmetropic biometry
index of the crystalline lens nL was significantly higher than data is also given in Table A3. Note the increase in the lens
that of the emmetropic data set. This may be the result of thickness T with age and the decreases in anterior chamber
the compounding of the standard deviations of the RLA, RLP, depth ACD and pupil size Sp, all of which are well known
and T parameters used to calculate nL. This discrepancy age-related physiological changes.13

TABLE A1. Mean Matrix M for Monocular Model in Right Eyes Only

Age KA,M KA,J0 KA,J45 EccA KP,M KP, J0 KP, J45 EccP RLA RLP T Pachy ACD L SP PL

Means 39.878 43.294 0.297 0.060 0.403 ⫺6.265 ⫺0.166 ⫺0.003 0.151 10.427 ⫺6.864 4.070 0.545 2.870 23.667 6.505 22.994

Downloaded from iovs.arvojournals.org on 12/05/2022

 4532

TABLE A2. Covariance Matrix C for Monocular Model in Right Eyes Only

Age KA,M KA, J0 KA,J45 EccA KP,M KP, J0 KP, J45 EccP RLA RLP T Pachy ACD L SP PL

Age y 147.821 ⫺0.322 ⫺0.281 ⫺0.324 ⫺0.825 ⫺0.181 ⫺0.069 ⫺0.139 1.271 ⫺8.971 1.555 5.067 0.017 ⫺2.554 ⫺4.691 ⫺6.375 2.174
Anterior keratometry KA,M ⫺0.322 1.836 0.127 ⫺0.017 0.010 ⫺0.273 ⫺0.036 0.006 ⫺0.108 ⫺0.072 0.089 ⫺0.043 ⫺0.002 0.031 ⫺0.581 ⫺0.289 0.065
KA, J0 ⫺0.281 0.127 0.077 0.004 0.014 ⫺0.021 ⫺0.012 0.002 0.000 ⫺0.033 ⫺0.021 0.024 ⫺0.001 ⫺0.016 ⫺0.065 ⫺0.056 0.060
Rozema et al.

KA, J45 ⫺0.324 ⫺0.017 0.004 0.051 0.001 0.004 ⫺0.001 ⫺0.004 ⫺0.009 0.066 0.009 ⫺0.022 ⫺0.001 0.005 ⫺0.019 0.038 0.101
EccA ⫺0.825 0.010 0.014 0.001 0.030 ⫺0.001 ⫺0.001 0.000 0.003 0.033 ⫺0.021 ⫺0.031 0.000 0.004 0.035 0.022 0.010
Posterior keratometry KP,M ⫺0.181 ⫺0.273 ⫺0.021 0.004 ⫺0.001 0.050 0.007 ⫺0.002 0.008 0.030 ⫺0.030 0.008 ⫺0.001 0.006 0.107 0.080 ⫺0.026
KP, J0 ⫺0.069 ⫺0.036 ⫺0.012 ⫺0.001 ⫺0.001 0.007 0.005 0.000 ⫺0.00 0.000 ⫺0.003 0.002 0.000 0.004 0.021 0.017 ⫺0.020
KP, J45 ⫺0.139 0.006 0.002 ⫺0.004 0.000 ⫺0.002 0.000 0.003 0.000 ⫺0.009 0.003 ⫺0.002 0.000 ⫺0.001 ⫺0.005 ⫺0.004 ⫺0.010
EccP 1.271 ⫺0.108 0.000 ⫺0.009 0.003 0.008 ⫺0.001 0.000 0.077 ⫺0.196 0.068 0.063 0.000 ⫺0.041 ⫺0.033 ⫺0.075 0.113
Phakometry RLA ⫺8.971 ⫺0.072 ⫺0.033 0.066 0.033 0.030 0.000 ⫺0.009 ⫺0.196 1.924 ⫺0.616 ⫺0.376 ⫺0.011 0.316 0.311 0.000 ⫺1.136

Downloaded from iovs.arvojournals.org on 12/05/2022

RLP 1.555 0.089 ⫺0.021 0.009 ⫺0.021 ⫺0.030 ⫺0.003 0.003 0.068 ⫺0.616 0.712 0.098 ⫺0.001 ⫺0.050 ⫺0.172 0.000 0.924
T 5.067 ⫺0.043 0.024 ⫺0.022 ⫺0.031 0.008 0.002 ⫺0.002 0.063 ⫺0.376 0.098 0.191 0.000 ⫺0.091 ⫺0.008 0.000 0.185
Biometry Pachy 0.017 ⫺0.002 ⫺0.001 ⫺0.001 0.000 ⫺0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 ⫺0.011 ⫺0.001 0.000 0.001 ⫺0.002 0.001 ⫺0.002 ⫺0.012
ACD ⫺2.554 0.031 ⫺0.016 0.005 0.004 0.006 0.004 ⫺0.001 ⫺0.041 0.316 ⫺0.050 ⫺0.091 ⫺0.002 0.143 0.239 0.264 ⫺0.287
L ⫺4.691 ⫺0.581 ⫺0.065 ⫺0.019 0.035 0.107 0.021 ⫺0.005 ⫺0.033 0.311 ⫺0.172 ⫺0.008 0.001 0.239 1.233 0.653 ⫺1.120
SP ⫺6.375 ⫺0.289 ⫺0.056 0.038 0.022 0.080 0.017 ⫺0.004 ⫺0.075 0.000 0.000 0.000 ⫺0.002 0.264 0.653 1.237 ⫺0.750
Lens Power PL 2.174 0.065 0.060 0.101 0.010 ⫺0.0261 ⫺0.020 ⫺0.010 0.113 ⫺1.136 0.924 0.185 ⫺0.012 ⫺0.287 ⫺1.120 ⫺0.750 4.561

TABLE A3. Twenty Examples of Generated Emmetropic Eyes

Age Sph Cyl Axis KA,M KA,J0 KA, J45 EccA KP,M KP, J0 KP, J45 EccP RLA RLP T nl Pachy ACD L SP

1 20.0 ⫺0.09 ⫺0.68 167.2 44.10 ⫺0.30 0.15 0.16 ⫺6.54 ⫺0.09 ⫺0.04 0.14 10.16 ⫺5.99 4.14 1.435 0.517 3.05 22.76 6.5
2 22.2 0.88 ⫺1.92 107.1 44.26 0.81 0.55 0.61 ⫺6.24 ⫺0.23 ⫺0.08 0.38 9.35 ⫺6.33 4.31 1.436 0.517 2.93 22.32 7.4
3 24.9 0.35 ⫺1.05 98.5 43.54 0.51 0.15 0.21 ⫺6.19 ⫺0.26 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.78 12.78 ⫺7.39 3.82 1.419 0.552 3.47 24.73 6.4
4 27.7 0.26 ⫺1.39 116.0 42.62 0.43 0.55 0.80 ⫺6.10 ⫺0.20 ⫺0.08 0.07 10.85 ⫺5.40 3.96 1.428 0.551 3.51 23.48 8.3
5 30.0 0.18 ⫺0.44 125.3 42.09 0.07 0.21 0.32 ⫺6.04 ⫺0.27 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.15 10.13 ⫺6.27 4.38 1.415 0.540 3.10 24.76 9.3
6 32.4 0.37 ⫺0.72 112.4 43.92 0.26 0.26 0.67 ⫺6.31 ⫺0.13 ⫺0.07 0.20 12.44 ⫺6.64 4.31 1.441 0.450 3.46 23.27 7.6
7 35.0 0.58 ⫺0.74 108.3 43.13 0.30 0.22 0.37 ⫺6.33 ⫺0.15 0.06 0.09 11.03 ⫺6.45 3.81 1.420 0.551 2.35 23.62 6.1
8 37.4 0.05 ⫺0.44 73.7 41.44 0.19 ⫺0.12 0.19 ⫺6.13 ⫺0.22 ⫺0.04 0.18 10.84 ⫺6.04 4.12 1.435 0.541 3.11 23.80 6.9
9 40.0 1.22 ⫺1.67 101.2 43.36 0.79 0.33 0.48 ⫺6.30 ⫺0.18 0.08 0.30 8.01 ⫺6.38 4.14 1.418 0.586 2.49 22.93 7.4
10 42.5 0.49 ⫺1.22 95.2 45.09 0.61 0.11 0.36 ⫺6.40 ⫺0.25 ⫺0.03 ⫺0.31 9.22 ⫺6.56 4.07 1.425 0.573 2.75 22.67 7.4
11 45.1 ⫺0.10 ⫺0.61 144.9 44.16 ⫺0.10 0.29 0.31 ⫺6.29 ⫺0.27 ⫺0.15 0.17 12.19 ⫺6.84 3.95 1.441 0.480 3.46 23.30 5.8
12 47.5 0.63 ⫺1.24 91.5 46.73 0.63 0.03 0.35 ⫺6.76 ⫺0.26 ⫺0.06 0.17 8.18 ⫺6.14 5.11 1.419 0.514 2.46 22.21 6.7
13 50.1 0.22 ⫺0.72 92.7 40.92 0.36 0.03 0.26 ⫺5.95 ⫺0.24 ⫺0.07 0.56 11.29 ⫺7.85 5.08 1.431 0.594 3.33 25.57 7.1
14 52.4 0.85 ⫺1.10 99.1 44.41 0.54 0.18 0.33 ⫺6.41 ⫺0.15 ⫺0.05 0.21 8.20 ⫺5.83 5.20 1.425 0.527 2.44 22.44 6.3
15 55.0 ⫺0.01 ⫺0.22 115.9 41.86 0.07 0.09 0.56 ⫺5.95 ⫺0.08 ⫺0.09 9.31 ⫺7.08 4.76 1.422 0.513 2.65 24.60 6.4
16 57.5 0.17 ⫺0.51 30.7 43.21 ⫺0.12 ⫺0.22 0.22 ⫺6.25 ⫺0.14 0.02 0.28 9.18 ⫺8.02 4.12 1.436 0.641 2.37 23.24 5.2
17 60.4 0.13 ⫺0.70 63.9 44.33 0.22 ⫺0.28 0.54 ⫺6.47 ⫺0.22 0.10 ⫺0.14 10.69 ⫺9.16 4..72 1.446 0.552 2.82 23.52 6.1
18 61.8 0.26 ⫺0.29 103.1 42.04 0.13 0.07 0.45 ⫺6.06 ⫺0.13 ⫺0.07 ⫺0.02 8.96 ⫺6.40 5.07 1.435 0.552 2.91 23.57 6.8
19 67.9 0.43 ⫺0.85 88.7 44.35 0.43 ⫺0.02 0.29 ⫺6.50 ⫺0.23 ⫺0.03 0.17 6.94 ⫺5.75 5.81 1.409 0.526 2.50 23.43 4.7
20 69.4 0.35 ⫺0.87 8.5 43.32 ⫺0.42 ⫺0.13 0.10 ⫺6.37 ⫺0.13 0.04 0.31 9.16 ⫺7.17 4.96 1.442 0.540 2.25 22.76 4.9

Data are for eyes with spherical equivalent in the range ⫺0.5 to ⫹0.5 D. Sp,: calculated sphere; Cyl, calculated cylinder; Axis, calculated axis.
IOVS, June 2011, Vol. 52, No. 7
 IOVS, June 2011, Vol. 52, No. 7 Statistical Eye Model for Normal Eyes 4533

References 25. Rosales P, Marcos S. Phakometry and lens tilt and decentration
using a custom-developed Purkinje imaging apparatus: validation
1. Gullstrand A. Appendix II and IV. von Helmholtz’ Handbuch der and measurements. J Opt Soc Am A. 2006;23:509 –520.
Physiologischen Optik. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Hamburg, Germany: Voss; 26. Vilupuru AS, Glasser A. Optical and biometric relationships of the
1909:301–358, 382– 415. isolated pig crystalline lens. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2001;21:
2. Le Grand Y. Optique Physiologique I. Paris: Editions de la Revue 296 –311.
d’Optique; 1953:52. 27. Kuzmanović Elabjer B, Petrinović-Dorešić J, Ðurić M, Bušić M,
3. Emsley HH. Visual Optics. Vol. 1. London: Butterworth; 1962:40 – Elabjer E. Optical component interactions in emmetropes. Coll
42, 344, 460 –361. Antropol. 2007;31:743–749.
4. Lotmar W. Theoretical eye model with aspherics. J Opt Soc Am. 28. Gonzalez Blanco F, Sanz Fernandez JC, Munoz Sanz MA. Axial
1971;61:1522–1529. length, corneal radius, and age of myopia onset. Optom Vis Sci.
5. Kooijman SC. Light distribution on the retina of a wide-angle 2008;2:89 –96.
theoretical eye. J Opt Soc Am. 1983;73:1544 –1550. 29. Olsen T, Arnarsson A, Sasaki H, Sasaki K, Jonasson F. On the ocular
6. Navarro R, Santamaria J, Bescos J. Accommodation dependent refractive components: The Reykjavik Eye Study. Acta Ophthalmol
model of the human eye with aspherics. J Opt Soc Am A. 1985;2: Scand. 2007;85:361–366.
1273–1281. 30. Touzeau O, Allouch C, Borderie V, Kopito R, Laroche L. Corréla-
7. Liou HL, Brennan NA. Anatomically accurate, finite model eye for tion entre la réfraction et la biométrie oculaire. J Fr Ophtalmol.
optical modeling. J Opt Soc Am A. 1997;14:1684 –1695. 2003;26:355–363.
8. Siedlecki D, Kasprzak H, Pierscionek BK. Schematic eye with a 31. Thibos L, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: an application of
gradient-index lens and aspheric surfaces. Opt Lett. 2004;29:1197– Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refrac-
1199. tive error. Optom Vis Sci. 1997;74:367–375.
9. Goncharov AV, Dainty C. Wide-field schematic eye models with 32. Bennett AG. A method of determining the equivalent powers of
gradient-index lens. J Opt Soc Am A. 2007;24:2157–2174. the eye and its crystalline lens without resort to phakometry.
Ophthal Physiol Opt. 1988;8:53–59.
10. Thibos LN, Ye M, Zhang X, Bradley A. The chromatic eye: a new
reduced-eye model of ocular chromatic aberration in humans. 33. Sheard RM, Smith GT, Cooke DL. Improving the prediction accu-
Appl Opt. 1992;31:3594 –3600. racy of the SRK/T formula: the T2 formula. J Cataract Refract
Surg. 2010;36:1829 –1834.
11. Pomerantzeff O, Pankratov M, Wang G-J, Dufault P. Wide-angle
34. Retzlaff JA, Sanders DR, Kraff MC. Development of the SRK/T
optical model of the eye. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1984;61:166 –
intraocular lens implant power calculation formula. J Cataract
176.
Refract Surg. 1990;16(3):333–340.
12. Escudero-Sanz I, Navarro R. Off-axis aberrations of a wide-angle
35. Gerrard A, Burch JM. Introduction to Matrix Methods in Optics.
schematic eye model. J Opt Soc Am A. 1999;16:1881–1891.
Mineola, NY: Dover; 1994.
13. Atchison DAA, Markwell EL, Kasthurirangan S, Pope JM, Smith G,
36. Pedrotti LS, Pedrotti FL. Optics and Vision. Upper Saddle River,
Swann PG. Age-related changes in optical and biometric charac-
NJ: Prentice Hall; 1998:77.
teristics of emmetropic eyes. J Vision. 2008;8:29.
37. Calossi A. Corneal asphericity and spherical aberration. J Refract
14. Atchison DA. Optical models for human myopic eyes. Vision Res. Surg. 2007;23:505–514.
2006;46:2236 –2250.
38. Gobin L, Rozema JJ, Tassignon MJ. Predicting refractive aniseiko-
15. de Almeida MS, Carvalho LA. Different schematic eyes and their nia after cataract surgery in anisometropia. J Cataract Refract
accuracy to the in vivo eye: a quantitative comparison study. Surg. 2008;34(8):1353–1361.
Brazil J Phys. 2007;37:378 –387.
39. Westlake WJ. Symmetrical confidence-intervals for bioequivalence
16. Bakaraju RC, Ehrmann K, Papas E, Ho A. Finite schematic eye trials. Biometrics. 1976;32:741–744.
models and their accuracy to in-vivo data. Vision Res. 2008;48:
40. Schuirmann DJ. A comparison of the 2 one-sided tests procedure
1681–1694.
and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average
17. Walsh G, Charman WN, Howland HC. Objective technique for the bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biop. 1987;15:657– 680.
determination of monochromatic aberrations of the human eye. J 41. Sorsby A, Benjamin B, Davey JB, Sheridan M, Tanner JM. Emmetro-
Opt Soc Am, A. 1984;1:987–992. pia and its aberrations; a study in the correlation of the optical
18. Navarro R, Gonzalez L, Hernandez-Matamoros JL. On the predic- components of the eye. Spec Rep Ser Med Res Counc (GB). 1957;
tion of optical aberrations by personalized eye models. Optom Vis 11(293):1– 69.
Sci. 2006;83:371–381. 42. Sorsby A, Leary GA, Richaerds MJ, Chaston J. Ultrasonographic
19. Rosales P, Marcos S. Customized computer models of eyes with measurement of the components of ocular refraction in life. Vision
intraocular lenses. Opt Express. 2007;15:2204 –2218. Res. 1963;3:499 –505.
20. Goncharov AV, Nowakowski M, Sheenan MT, Dainty C. Recon- 43. Mallen EAH, Gammoh Y, Al-Bdour M, Sayegh FN. Refractive error
struction of the optical system of the human eye with reverse ray and ocular biometry in Jordanian adults. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt.
tracing. Opt Lett. 2008;16:1692–1703. 2005;25:302–309.
21. Wei X, Thibos L. Modeling the eye’s optical system by ocular 44. McLellan JS, Prieto PM, Marcos S, Burns SA. Effects of interactions
wavefront tomography. Opt Lett. 2008;16:20490 –20502. among wave aberrations on optical image quality. Vision Res.
22. Ortiz S, Siedlecki D, Grulkowski I, et al. Optical distortion correc- 2006;46:3009 –3016.
tion in Optical coherence tomography for quantitative ocular an- 45. Marcos S, Burns SA. On the symmetry between eyes of wavefront
terior segment by three-dimensional imaging. Opt Express. 2010; aberration and cone directionality. Vision Res. 2000;40:2437–
18:2782–2796. 2447.
23. de Castro A, Ortiz S, Gambra E, Siedlecki D, Marcos S. Three- 46. Rynders M, Lidkea B, Chisholm W, Thibos LN. Statistical distribu-
dimensional reconstruction of the crystalline lens gradient index tion of foveal transverse chromatic aberration, pupil centration
distribution from OCT imaging. Opt Express. 2010;18:21905– and angle-Psi in a population of young adult eyes. J Opt Soc Am A.
21917. 1995;12:2348 –2357.
24. Thibos L, Bradley A, Hong X. A statistical model of the aberration 47. Marcos S, Burns SA, Prieto PM, Navarro R, Baraibar B. Investigating
structure of normal, well-corrected eyes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. sources of variability of monochromatic and transverse chromatic
2002;22:427– 433. aberrations across eyes. Vision Res. 2001;41:3861–3871.

Downloaded from iovs.arvojournals.org on 12/05/2022