Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 22, 2026

Comparison of Agreement and Accuracy using Binocular Wavefront Optometer with Autorefractor and Phoropter
05:14

Comparison of Agreement and Accuracy using Binocular Wavefront Optometer with Autorefractor and Phoropter

Published on: September 16, 2025

Detecting significant change in wavefront error: how long does it take?

Darren E Koenig1, Raymond A Applegate, Jason D Marsack

  • 1Visual Optics Institute, College of Optometry, University of Houston, 4901 Calhoun Road, Houston, TX 77204-2020, USA. DKoenig@optometry.uh.edu

Clinical & Experimental Optometry
|May 27, 2009
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Adding personalized wavefront correction to a scleral lens after lens manufacture.

Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision·2026
Same author

Quantifying the consequence of anterior-surface polishing time on the optical performance of wavefront-guided scleral lenses.

Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision·2026
Same author

Unintended wavefront aberration changes associated with the re-blocking of scleral lenses.

Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision·2025
Same author

Roadmap on advances in visual and physiological optics.

Journal of optics (2010)·2025
Same author

Comparing visual acuity and optimized visual image quality for individuals with and without Down syndrome.

Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry·2025
Same author

Comparison of Unaided and Aided Visual Acuity in Adults With Down Syndrome.

Translational vision science & technology·2025
Same journal

Validation of the vision quality of life-time survey: comparison with the convergence insufficiency symptom survey.

Clinical & experimental optometry·2026
Same journal

Measuring contrast sensitivity in school children and young adults: a comparison between Pelli-Robson and SpotChecks charts.

Clinical & experimental optometry·2026
Same journal

Three-year retinal and visual outcomes after ultraviolet- and blue light-filtering intraocular lenses.

Clinical & experimental optometry·2026
Same journal

Repeatability of choroidal optical coherence tomography angiography metrics in healthy young adults.

Clinical & experimental optometry·2026
Same journal

Effects of ageing on reading acuity and speed in Spanish older adults.

Clinical & experimental optometry·2026
Same journal

Exploring clinical determinants and machine learning-based prediction of disease characteristics in Graves ophthalmopathy.

Clinical & experimental optometry·2026
See all related articles

Detecting age-related changes in high-order wavefront error (HO WFE) is challenging due to measurement noise. Multiple measurements significantly reduce the time needed to detect these changes, improving diagnostic accuracy.

Area of Science:

  • Ophthalmology
  • Optometry
  • Vision Science

Background:

  • Measurement noise in ocular wavefront sensing complicates the detection of statistically significant changes in high-order wavefront error (HO WFE).
  • This noise poses a significant challenge for monitoring progressive changes in HO WFE over time.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To determine the time required to detect age-related changes in HO WFE, considering measurement variability, composition, and magnitude.
  • To minimize the duration necessary for detecting such changes.

Main Methods:

  • Five subjects with varying HO WFE (0.26-1.57 µm RMS) were measured 12 times within 10-15 minutes using a custom Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor.
  • Individual standard deviations calculated 95% confidence intervals; previously reported age-related HO WFE change rates informed time-to-detection calculations.

More Related Videos

Measurements of Waves in a Wind-wave Tank Under Steady and Time-varying Wind Forcing
08:54

Measurements of Waves in a Wind-wave Tank Under Steady and Time-varying Wind Forcing

Published on: February 13, 2018

Experimental and Data Analysis Workflow for Soft Matter Nanoindentation
13:04

Experimental and Data Analysis Workflow for Soft Matter Nanoindentation

Published on: January 18, 2022

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 22, 2026

Comparison of Agreement and Accuracy using Binocular Wavefront Optometer with Autorefractor and Phoropter
05:14

Comparison of Agreement and Accuracy using Binocular Wavefront Optometer with Autorefractor and Phoropter

Published on: September 16, 2025

Measurements of Waves in a Wind-wave Tank Under Steady and Time-varying Wind Forcing
08:54

Measurements of Waves in a Wind-wave Tank Under Steady and Time-varying Wind Forcing

Published on: February 13, 2018

Experimental and Data Analysis Workflow for Soft Matter Nanoindentation
13:04

Experimental and Data Analysis Workflow for Soft Matter Nanoindentation

Published on: January 18, 2022

Main Results:

  • Single measurements limit detection to 8-30 years; seven measurements reduce this to 3-14 years.
  • Detection time depends on measurement variability, aberration levels/distribution, and age.
  • Pupil center location uncertainty contributes 39% +/- 8% to total variability.

Conclusions:

  • Detecting short-term age-related HO WFE changes is difficult but feasible with current technology.
  • Single HO WFE measurements are less predictive with higher variability; multiple measurements decrease variability.
  • Pupil center location uncertainty is a significant factor in HO WFE measurement variability, even with proper alignment.