Abstract
Purpose: To profile the immediate effect of defocus-modulating and contrast-modulating myopia control spectacle lens interventions on visual function.
Methods: Healthy myopic (mean spherical equivalent (MSE) -4.25D to -0.50D) young adults, corrected with contact lenses, wore Diffusion Optics Technology (DOT), Defocus Incorporated Multiple Segments (DIMS), Highly Aspherical Lenslets (HAL) and standard single vision (SV) plano trial spectacle lenses, in a prospective, single-visit, double-blind, four-way randomised crossover study. Distance and near high- and low-contrast visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity, reading performance, accommodative facility, visual search task and accommodative accuracy were assessed foveally through the central zone (CZ) and/or peripheral zone (PZ) of the lenses.
Results: Twenty participants (16 F) were recruited, with a mean (±SD) age of 22.4 (±2.72) years and MSE -2.21 (±1.10) D. VAs through the PZ differed significantly between myopia control lenses and SV, with the HAL and DIMS exhibiting lower VA across all testing conditions (all p<0.05) and DOT demonstrating equivalence to SV with high contrast letters. Contrast sensitivity was similarly reduced for all lenses through the CZ, while HAL and DIMS performed worse than both SV and DOT through PZ (p<0.01). Near acuity threshold, reading speed and critical print size through PZ were comparable for SV, DOT and HAL (all p>0.05), whereas DIMS exhibited worse near acuity threshold and critical print size (p<0.001). No significant differences emerged for error score (p=0.53), accommodative facility refocusing cycles (all p>0.05) or visual search duration (CZ: p=0.68; PZ: p=0.35). Accommodative response was similar across lenses (all p>0.05); however, SV had lower variability at distance through the PZ than DOT, HAL and DIMS (p<0.001).
Conclusion: All three myopia control lenses exhibited visual performance comparable to standard SV lenses through the CZ. Clinicians should note differences in visual performance, especially VA and reading speed through the lens periphery and their relative testing.
Methods: Healthy myopic (mean spherical equivalent (MSE) -4.25D to -0.50D) young adults, corrected with contact lenses, wore Diffusion Optics Technology (DOT), Defocus Incorporated Multiple Segments (DIMS), Highly Aspherical Lenslets (HAL) and standard single vision (SV) plano trial spectacle lenses, in a prospective, single-visit, double-blind, four-way randomised crossover study. Distance and near high- and low-contrast visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity, reading performance, accommodative facility, visual search task and accommodative accuracy were assessed foveally through the central zone (CZ) and/or peripheral zone (PZ) of the lenses.
Results: Twenty participants (16 F) were recruited, with a mean (±SD) age of 22.4 (±2.72) years and MSE -2.21 (±1.10) D. VAs through the PZ differed significantly between myopia control lenses and SV, with the HAL and DIMS exhibiting lower VA across all testing conditions (all p<0.05) and DOT demonstrating equivalence to SV with high contrast letters. Contrast sensitivity was similarly reduced for all lenses through the CZ, while HAL and DIMS performed worse than both SV and DOT through PZ (p<0.01). Near acuity threshold, reading speed and critical print size through PZ were comparable for SV, DOT and HAL (all p>0.05), whereas DIMS exhibited worse near acuity threshold and critical print size (p<0.001). No significant differences emerged for error score (p=0.53), accommodative facility refocusing cycles (all p>0.05) or visual search duration (CZ: p=0.68; PZ: p=0.35). Accommodative response was similar across lenses (all p>0.05); however, SV had lower variability at distance through the PZ than DOT, HAL and DIMS (p<0.001).
Conclusion: All three myopia control lenses exhibited visual performance comparable to standard SV lenses through the CZ. Clinicians should note differences in visual performance, especially VA and reading speed through the lens periphery and their relative testing.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 49–59 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics |
| Volume | 46 |
| Early online date | 5 Mar 2026 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 5 Mar 2026 |
Bibliographical note
Copyright © The Author(s) 2026. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.Funding
This research was funded by SightGlass Vision.
| Funders |
|---|
| SightGlass Vision Inc |
Keywords
- Accommodative facility
- Accommodative response
- Contrast sensitivity
- Myopia control
- Reading performance
- Visual acuity
- Visual performance
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'The impact of myopia control spectacle lens designs on visual function'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver