Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 14, 2026
Comparison of Agreement and Accuracy using Binocular Wavefront Optometer with Autorefractor and Phoropter
Published on: September 16, 2025
The precision of wavefront refraction compared to subjective refraction and autorefraction
Konrad Pesudovs1, Katrina E Parker, Han Cheng
1Department of Ophthalmology, NH and MRC Centre of Clinical Eye Research, Flinders University and Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia. Konrad.Pesudovs@flinders.edu.au
Purpose:
To determine the precision (repeatability) of several methods of calculating refraction from higher-order wavefront aberration data and to compare these wavefront refractions with lower-order (LO) wavefront refraction, subjective refraction, and autorefraction.
Methods:
Four clinicians refracted 16 normal participants aged 23.6 +/- 1.2 years, 69% female with an average spherical equivalent refractive error of -3.03 +/- 2.55 D, median sphere -2.50 D (minimum -7.50, maximum +4.75), and median cylinder -0.50 D (minimum -3.00, maximum 0). Participants were cyclopleged and underwent subjective refraction, autorefraction on two machines (Nidek AR-800, Topcon KR-8000), and wavefront sensing using the Wavefront Sciences Complete Ophthalmic Analysis System. Wavefront error was used to calculate: LO refraction, refractions that incorporated higher-order spherical and astigmatism terms from up to the 4th, 6th, and 10th orders (PCM4, PCM6, and PCM10), and a method based on optimizing image quality metrics [wavefront analysis technology (WAT) refraction]. Within and between examiner agreements for total dioptric difference were determined using Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LOA).
Results:
The interexaminer LOA for individual measurements for M, J0, J45 were: Topcon (+/-0.18, +/-0.10, +/-0.06), Nidek (+/-0.28, +/-0.16, +/-0.09), LO (+/-0.17, +/-0.10, +/-0.06), PCM4 (+/-0.26, +/-0.09, +/-0.06), PCM6 (+/-0.37, +/-0.17, +/-0.34), PCM10 (+/-0.54, +/-0.32, +/-0.40), WAT (+/-0.28, +/-0.20, +/-0.15), and subjective refraction (+/-0.48, +/-0.20, +/-0.13) and averaging across three measures LOA: Topcon (+/-0.15, +/-0.08, +/-0.05), Nidek (+/-0.21, +/-0.13, +/-0.07), LO (+/-0.12, +/-0.06, +/-0.04), PCM4 (+/-0.16, +/-0.05, +/-0.04), PCM6 (+/-0.23, +/-0.09, +/-0.19), PCM10 (+/-0.29, +/-0.19, +/-0.24), and WAT (+/-0.18, +/-0.12, +/-0.10). The within-examiner LOA for M, J0, J45 were: Topcon (+/-0.08, +/-0.04, +/-0.02), Nidek (+/-0.13, +/-0.07, +/-0.05 D), LO (+/-0.11, +/-0.07, +/-0.04), PCM4 (+/-0.17, +/-0.07, +/-0.04 D), PCM6 (+/-0.28, +/-0.12, +/-0.24 D), PCM10 (+/-0.42, +/-0.24, +/-0.32 D), and WAT (+/-0.19, +/-0.14, +/-0.09 D).
Conclusions:
All objective refractions except for PCM10 were more repeatable across clinicians than subjective refraction. The precision of all refractions were improved by an expected amount through averaging over multiple measurements. Wavefront refractions were not as precise as standard autorefractions, although not clinically significantly worse.
Related Concept Videos
01:26Influence of Earth's Curvature and Atmospheric Refraction on Leveling
01:16Focusing of Light in the Eye
01:07Propagation of Waves
Consider a scenario where a wave propagates from a string of low linear mass density to a string of high linear mass density. In such a case, the reflected wave is out of phase with respect to the incident wave, however the...