ArticleScientific reports2022
Temporal properties of positive and negative defocus on emmetropization.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Annual Solar Cycles: Investigating Seasonal Variations in Southern Norway and Their Potential Role in Human Eye Growth.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Effect on Emmetropization of the Timing and Spectrum of Breaks From a Myopiagenic Environment.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Choroidal response to optical defocus as a potential surrogate marker for myopia control effect.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Interactions Between High-Intensity Light and Unrestricted Vision in the Drive for Hyperopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Inner Retinal Microvasculature With Refraction in Juvenile Rhesus Monkeys.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- A review of mechanism of action of outdoor exposure in preventing myopia incidence and progression.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Review
- IMI 2023 Digest.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2023Article
- GABABiomolecules · 2023Article
- Visual information and the development/control of myopia: Insights from nonhuman primate experiences.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Studying the temporal integration of visual signals is crucial to understand how time spent on different visual tasks can affect emmetropization and refractive error development. In this study we assessed the effect of interrupting positive and negative lens-imposed defocus with brief periods of unrestricted vision or darkness. A total of forty-six marmosets were treated monocularly with soft contact lenses for 4 weeks from 10 weeks of age (OD: + 5D or - 5D; OS: plano). Two control groups wore + 5D (n = 5) or - 5D (n = 13) lenses continuously for 9 h/day. Two experimental groups had lens-wear interrupted for 30 min twice/day at noon and mid-afternoon by removing lenses and monitoring vision while marmosets sat at the center of a viewing cylinder (normal vision interruption, + 5D: n = 7; - 5D: n = 8) or while they were in the dark (dark interruption, + 5D: n = 7; - 5D: n = 6). The interruption period (30 min/day) represented approx. 10% of the total stimulation time (9 h/day). On-axis refractive error (RE) and vitreous chamber depth (VCD) were measured using an autorefractor and high frequency A-scan ultrasound at baseline and after treatment. Wearing + 5D lenses continuously 9 h/day for 4 weeks induced slowed eye growth and hyperopic shifts in RE in treated relative to contralateral control eyes (relative change, VCD: - 25 ± 11 μm, p > 0.05; RE: + 1.24 ± 0.58 D, p > 0.05), whereas - 5D lens wear resulted in larger and myopic eyes (relative change, VCD: + 109 ± 24 μm, p < 0.001; RE: - 2.03 ± 0.56 D, p < 0.05), significantly different from those in the + 5D lens-treated animals (p < 0.01 for both). Interrupting lens induced defocus with periods of normal vision or darkness for approx. 10% of the treatment time affected the resulting compensation differently for myopic and hyperopic defocus. Interrupting defocus with unrestricted vision reduced - 5D defocus compensation but enhanced + 5D defocus compensation (- 5D, VCD: + 18 ± 33 μm; RE: - 0.93 ± 0.50 D, both p > 0.05; + 5D, VCD: - 86 ± 30 μm; RE: + 1.93 ± 0.50 D, both p < 0.05). Interrupting defocus with darkness also decreased - 5D defocus compensation, but had little effect on + 5D defocus compensation (- 5D, VCD: + 73 ± 34 μm, RE: - 1.13 ± 0.77 D, p > 0.05 for both; + 5D, VCD: - 10 ± 28 μm, RE: + 1.22 ± 0.50 D, p > 0.05 for both). These findings in a non-human primate model of emmetropization are similar to those described in other species and confirm a non-linear model of visual signal integration over time. This suggests a mechanism that is conserved across species and may have clinical implications for myopia management in school-aged children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.