C L I N I C A L A N D E X P E R I M E N T A L
OPTOMETRY
cxo_530 76..81
Stereoacuity with balanced presbyopic contact lenses
Clin Exp Optom 2011; 94: 1: 76–81
Teresa Ferrer-Blasco* OD PhD
David Madrid-Costa† OD PhD FAAO
* Optometry Research Group (GIO),
Optics Department, University of
Valencia, Spain
†
European University of Madrid, Spain
E-mail: teresa.ferrer@uv.es
Submitted: 14 February 2010
Revised: 3 June 2010
Accepted for publication: 29 June 2010
Key words: multifocal contact lens, presbyopia, simultaneous vision, stereoacuity, vision evaluation
Presbyopic correction with contact lenses
is one of the most important areas of
contact lens practice. Current techniques
for the correction of presbyopia with
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 94.1 January 2011
76
RESEARCH PAPER
DOI:10.1111/j.1444-0938.2010.00530.x
Background: To evaluate near stereoacuity with the balanced Proclear Multifocal simul-
taneous vision contact lens.
Methods: Twenty-five presbyopic subjects were fitted binocularly with the Proclear Mul-
tifocal contact lens and with distance contact lenses combined with reading spectacles,
which served as controls. After one month, stereoacuity was measured using the vecto-
graphic Titmus and Random dot stereotests and the Howard-Dolman (HD) apparatus
under photopic conditions (85 cd/m2) at 40 cm. Binocular high-contrast visual acuities
(BHCVA) at distance and near were examined.
Results: For the multifocal group, mean stereoacuity with the Howard-Dolman method
was 22.40 ⫾ 8.23 seconds of arc. Using the Titmus and the Random dot sterereotests, the
values were 56.40 ⫾ 18.00 and 54.80 ⫾ 20.23 seconds of arc, respectively. For the SCL
group, mean stereoacuities were 19.9 ⫾ 4.6, 51.2 ⫾ 16.4 and 51.2 ⫾ 20.88 seconds of arc,
with the Howard-Dolman, Titmus and the Random dot, respectively. There were no
statistically significant differences among groups for Howard-Dolman (p = 0.07), Titmus
(p = 0.10) and Random dot (p = 0.17) stereotests. No statistically significant differences
were found between the Titmus and the Random dot stereotest values (multifocal group:
p = 0.30 and SCL group: p = 0.50), however, these values differ significantly from those
found using the Howard-Dolman method for both groups (p < 0.001). For the multifocal
group, BHCVA was -0.007 ⫾ 0.060 and 0.012 ⫾ 0.063 logMAR for distance and near
vision, respectively. For the SCL group, these values were -0.02 ⫾ 0.05 and -0.01 ⫾ 0.06
logMAR, for distance and near vision, respectively. Comparing both groups there were
no statistically significant differences between groups for either distance (p = 0.08) or
near (p = 0.09).
Conclusions: The Proclear Multifocal contact lens provided good distance and near
visual acuity preserving stereopsis. Multifocal optics with one lens biased to distance
viewing and the other lens biased toward near viewing minimally affects stereoacuity.
contact lenses are based on one of three one eye for near vision. In alternating
principles: monovision, alternating vision vision, the line of sight alternates between
or simultaneous vision. In monovision, two optical zones, one for distance and
one eye is corrected for distant vision and one for near, and in simultaneous vision,
© 2010 The Authors
Clinical and Experimental Optometry © 2010 Optometrists Association Australia

the contact lens has multiple powers posi-
tioned within the pupil at the same time.
Although previous reports have shown
that the success rate for monovision is
between 70 and 76 per cent,1,2 it has been
reported to decrease in stereopsis.2–4 The
amount of decrease becomes more signifi-
cant with increased addition power in the
non-dominant eye. In a crossover study of
38 presbyopic patients, Richdale, Mitchell
and Zadnik4 showed that 76 per cent of
the patients preferred multifocal soft
contact lenses to monovision. Recently,
Gupta, Naroo and Wolffsohn5 have con-
cluded that a centre-near aspheric simul-
taneous vision multifocal contact lens
provides better stereoacuity than monovi-
sion. New simultaneous vision lenses have
been developed that are intended to
address many of the limitations that have
been identified in earlier generations of
this type of contact lenses.
Stereoscopic acuity or stereoacuity is the
ability to discriminate very fine differences
of depth from geometric disparity. It is
quantified by the minimum geometric dis-
parity that elicits a sensation of depth.
There are several factors that affect stere-
opsis including reduced contrast, refrac-
tive error, heterophoria, aniseikonia and
age.6–14 Simultaneous vision contact lenses
enable projection onto the retinal plane
of images set at distance and near. When
the eye is viewing a distant object, there is
a focused image of the distant object and
an out-focus image of the same distant
object formed on the retina and when the
eye is viewing a near object, there is a
focused image of the near object and
an out-focus image of the same object
formed on retina. In both situations, the
unwanted effect of the light on the out-of-
focus image of multifocal systems is to
reduce the contrast of the in-focus
image.15,16 Clear bifoveal images are
needed for high-resolution stereopsis and
reduction in retinal image contrast pro-
vided by simultaneous vision contact
lenses may result in worsening of stereop-
sis. Previous studies analysing stereopsis
with multifocal contact lenses have shown
a high variability among results.3–5,17–21 The
use of different optical principles (refrac-
tion or diffraction), the design of the lens
© 2010 The Authors
Clinical and Experimental Optometry © 2010 Optometrists Association Australia
Stereoacuity with balanced presbyopic contact lenses Ferrer-Blasco and Madrid-Costa
(addition and zones), and the different
vectographic stereotests used (fixed dis-
parity steps) may play a role in the out-
comes reported. The use of tests where
disparity is constructed vectographically
may not be sensitive enough to detect
subtle changes in stereoacuity produced
by defocused images in eyes with multi-
focal contact lenses. The Howard-Dolman
method is more accurate than vecto-
graphic discrete tests to determine
stereoacuity as it allows continuous
measurement of stereoacuity.22,23
To date, no study has been conducted
to evaluate threshold stereoacuity at near
in patients wearing simultaneous vision
contact lenses for presbyopia. The objec-
tive of this study was to assess the stereoa-
cuity outcomes of patients fitted bilaterally
with the Proclear Multifocal simultaneous
vision contact lenses and to compare the
results to those with distance contact
lenses combined with reading spectacles
using the Howard-Dolman method, the
Titmus and the Random dot stereotests.
METHODS
Patients and lenses
A study was conducted of 25 presbyopic
patients, 18 females and seven males, with
no prior experience with presbyopic
contact lenses. Inclusion criteria were age
between 50 and 60 years, spherical equiva-
lent error between +3.00 and -3.00 D and
the desire to no longer wear any form of
spectacle correction for distance and
near vision. Exclusion criteria included
ocular disease, history of ocular surgery or
inflammation, astigmatism greater than
0.75 D and the presence of any binocular
vision abnormalities (for example, am-
blyopia and/or strabismus). The study
followed the tenets of the Declaration of
Helsinki and was approved by the Institu-
tional Review Board. Informed consent
was obtained from all patients after the
nature and possible consequences of the
study had been explained.
Patients were fitted with the Cooper-
Vision (Fairport, NY) Proclear Multifocal
contact lens. We followed the fitting
nomogram suggested by the manufacturer
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 94.1 January 2011
for initial lens selection.24 This design
combines spherical and aspheric optics
and unique zone sizes to produce a ‘D’
lens for the dominant eye (centre-distance
design), which emphasises distance vision
and an ‘N’ lens for the non-dominant eye
(centre-near design), which optimises
near vision. The balanced presbyopic
lens combines multifocal optics with one
lens biased to distance viewing and the
other lens biased toward near viewing
(Figure 1). The ‘D’ lens has a spherical
central zone 2.3 mm in diameter dedi-
cated to distance vision, surrounded by an
annular aspheric zone of 5.0 mm and a
spherical annular zone of 8.5 mm both
increasing in addition power. In contrast,
the ‘N’ lens has a spherical central zone of
1.7 mm dedicated to near vision followed
by an aspheric annular zone of 5.0 mm
and a spherical annular zone of 8.5 mm
both reducing addition power. Each ‘D’
and ‘N’ design is available from +4.00 to
-6.00 in 0.25 D steps and in four different
addition powers (+1.00, +1.50, +2.00,
+2.50). Patients wore the contact lenses
during one month. The lens is manufac-
tured from Omafilcon A that has a water
content of 62 per cent. The lens has a total
diameter of 14.4 mm and a base curve of
8.70 mm.
The patients were also fitted with spheri-
cal single vision distance soft contact
lenses combined with reading spectacles.
These contact lenses maximised distance
visual acuity and the near spectacle pre-
scription was selected to provide best
acuity at 40 cm.
Procedures
Each patient was given a comprehensive
eye examination, including medical and
ocular history, visual acuity, stereoacuity,
binocular testing, refraction and slitlamp
biomicroscopy. Binocular distance visual
acuity was determined using the ETDRS
high-contrast logMAR chart with the Func-
tional Vision System (Stereo Optical
Company) and near visual acuity was mea-
sured by means of the Precision Vision
Logarithmic Visual Acuity Chart 2000
New ETDRS at 40 cm. Stereoacuity was
measured using three methods: the
77
Stereoacuity with balanced presbyopic contact lenses Ferrer-Blasco and Madrid-Costa

Howard-Dolman, the Titmus and the
Random dot tests.
The Howard-Dolman apparatus, consid-
ered the gold standard to measure stere-
oacuity, is a box with two vertical black
rods (Figure 2A). The patient uses the psy-
chophysical method of adjustment to
make the two rods parallel to one another.
The patient sits so that the opening in
the box is at eye level. Usually, the patient
uses a pair of strings that are on a pulley
arrangement to make the adjustment.
One rod is moved by pulling on the string.
In our case, we modified the apparatus
including a small wheel to move slowly
and accurately the right rod and an elec-
Figure 1. Optical design of the Proclear Mutifocal contact lens for the dominant eye ‘D
lens’ with centre-distance power and for the non-dominant eye ‘N lens’ with centre-near
power
tronic caliper to get the distance in
microns between the left and the right
rods. We did five sets of 10 measurements
for each patient. Stereoacuity (SA) is
defined as:
SA = ( Δd d2 ) × IPD
where d is the distance from the left rod to
the eye, Dd is the distance between the left
and the right rods and IPD is the interpu-
pillary distance (Figure 2B). In our experi-
ment, the fixed rod was located at 40 cm
from the eye and interpupillary distance
was measured for each patient.
The Titmus and Random dot tests
(Figures 2C and 2D) are the most
common tests for stereopsis measurement
and are valued clinically because they are
compact, easy to store and carry, and
quick to administer and score. These tests
provide a measure of local stereoacuity
over a broad range of horizontal dispari-
ties via the vectographic technique using
Wirt rings in an easily portable form. All
rings involve monocularly visible contours
and the patient is required to wear pola-
rising filters. The Wirt circle targets allow a
near threshold measurement of stereoacu-
ity, with each set providing a different level
of disparity. The tests were performed at
40 cm through polarising spectacles. The
test plates were held at a 45 degree angle
to the facial plane. The patient was asked
to say which of the rings ‘popped out’ or
stood in front of the other. This was
a four (Titmus)/three (Random dot)-
alternative, forced-choice test and there-
fore, it is best to continue to the ninth
(Titmus)/10th (Random dot) group of
rings, forcing the patient to guess, if nec-
essary, after 15 seconds of inspection of a
single group. The criterion for scoring was
the last group correct before two consecu-
tive misses. The Titmus test has disparities
ranging from 800 to 40 seconds of arc and
the Random dot from 400 to 20 seconds
of arc.
Both the order of testing and the
contact lens conditions were randomised
between patients after contact lens
wearing of one month in each condition
(multifocal and SCL) at two measurement

Figure 2. Howard-Dolman apparatus (A), schematic drawing for computation (B. IPD = interpupillary distance, d = distance from the
left rod to the eye, Dd = distance between the left and the right rods), Titmus test (C) and Random dot test (D)

Clinical and Experimental Optometry 94.1 January 2011 © 2010 The Authors
78 Clinical and Experimental Optometry © 2010 Optometrists Association Australia

HCDVA (logMAR)
HCNVA (logMAR)
Stereoacuity H-D (sec arc)
Stereoacuity Titmus (sec arc)
Stereoacuity Random dot (sec arc)
HCDVA: binocular mean high contrast distance visual acuity; HCNVA: binocular mean high contrast
near visual acuity; H-D: Howard-Dolman
Table 1. Outcomes of visual acuity for distance and near and stereoacuity for the
patients examined wearing both multifocal contact lenses and spherical single vision
distance contact lenses with reading spectacle (SCL)
sessions. Thirteen patients wore the mul-
tifocal contact lenses during one month
and after this period were examined.
Then, they were fitted with the SCL
and the procedure was repeated. Twelve
patients wore SCL for one month and
after the examinations were completed,
they were fitted with multifocal contact
lenses and the procedure was repeated.
All examinations were performed under
photopic conditions at 85 lux and by
the same experienced contact lens
practitioner.
Data analysis
Data analysis was performed using SPSS for
Windows version 12.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago,
IL). Normality was checked by the Shapiro-
Wilk test and a paired-sample t-test and
ANOVA test were performed to compare
outcomes between tests and groups. Differ-
ences were considered to be statistically
significant when the p value was less than
0.01 (that is, at the one per cent level).
RESULTS
No subjects withdrew from this study at
any point. Mean age of the patients was
55.1 ⫾ 3.1 years (range 50 to 60 years).
The mean spherical equivalent refractive
© 2010 The Authors
Clinical and Experimental Optometry © 2010 Optometrists Association Australia
Stereoacuity with balanced presbyopic contact lenses Ferrer-Blasco and Madrid-Costa
clear Multifocal lens provides good
Multifocal SCL p value outcomes for distance and near vision
-0.007 ⫾ 0.006 -0.02 ⫾ 0.05 0.08 (approximately 6/6). Unfortunately,
(0.1 to -0.1) (0.1 to -0.1) there were no previous studies published
0.012 ⫾ 0.063 -0.01 ⫾ 0.06 0.09 about the visual performance of this lens
(0.1 to -0.1) (0.1 to -0.1) on presbyopic patients to compare with
22.4 ⫾ 8.23 19.9 ⫾ 4.6 0.07 our results. Despite this, we can compare
(16 to 50) (15 to 38) with other simultaneous vision multifocal
56.4 ⫾ 18 51.2 ⫾ 16.4 0.10 lenses (with other surface designs). Previ-
(15 to 38) (40 to 100) ous studies on the Focus Progressive17,25
54.8 ⫾ 20.23 51.2 ⫾ 20.88 0.17 contact lens agree with our results
(20 to 100) (20 to 100) (approximately 0.0 and 0.05 logMAR for
distance and near vision, respectively).
Worse results were found by Gupta, Naroo
and Wolffsohn5 with the high addition
PureVision contact lens (0.08 ⫾ 0.10 and
0.27 ⫾ 0.09 logMAR for distance and near
vision, respectively). In relation to the
control group, there were no differences
both for distance (p = 0.08) and near (p =
0.09) visual acuity.
Stereoacuity may be measured using dif-
ferent tests. Titmus and Random dot ste-
error was +0.15 ⫾ 1.93 D (range +3 to -3D)
reotests provide fixed disparities and so
and the mean near spectacle addition was
accuracy of the outcomes depends on the
+2.11 ⫾ 0.34 D (range 1.5 to 2.5 D). Mean
number of steps and its disparity level. In
astigmatism was 0.26 ⫾ 0.31 D (range zero
contrast, the Howard-Dolman method
to 0.5 D). Interpupillary distance was also
gives a continuous measure of stereoacuity
measured showing a mean value of 61.16
with high accuracy. We should consider
⫾ 1.99 mm ranging from 58 to 64 mm.
that the Titmus and Random dot ste-
Table 1 shows the visual acuity out-
reotests do not establish a stereoscopic
comes for distance and near vision for the
threshold. For most patients, both are
multifocal and SCL groups. Comparing
suprathreshold tests and therefore are
both groups there were no statistically sig-
much easier for the patient on that point
nificant differences for distance and near
alone than the Howard-Dolman. This last
vision (p < 0.05). This table also shows the
one is time-consuming and requires math-
mean values of stereoacuity obtained in
ematical computation. Disparity values of
both groups using the different tests.
the Titmus and Random dot stereotests
There were no statistically significant
are computed for fixed distance of obser-
differences among groups for Howard-
vation (40 cm) and interpupillary distance
Dolman, Titmus and Random dot
of the patient (6.0 cm). Elkington and
stereotests (p > 0.05). No statistically sig-
Frank26 reported that 40 to 50 seconds of
nificant differences were found between
arc is considered normal stereoacuity mea-
the Titmus and the Random dot stereotest
sured at 40 cm. The results found in our
values (multifocal group: p = 0.30 and SCL
study both wearing multifocal or SCL were
group: p = 0.50), however, these values
similar to the mean reported by these
differ significantly from that found using
authors (Table 1). Both tests, Titmus and
the Howard-Dolman method for both
Random, provide a measure of stereoacu-
groups (p < 0.001).
ity by asking the patient to identify the
correct target that has stereoscopic depth
(target with disparity). The working dis-
DISCUSSION
tance and interpupillary distance will need
Our results in terms of binocular high- to be taken into consideration when calcu-
contrast visual acuity show that the Pro- lating stereoacuity. Both tests are strictly
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 94.1 January 2011
79
Stereoacuity with balanced presbyopic contact lenses Ferrer-Blasco and Madrid-Costa

First author Patients Mean age ⫾SD Contact lens Test Stereoacuity Binocular distance Binocular near
(years) (sec arc) visual acuity visual acuity
(logMAR) (logMAR)

Sheedy et al18 40 N/A CIBA Spectrum Random dot About 60 About 0.0 N/A
Back et al 19
15 57 ⫾ 5 Concentric Center-Near Random dot 92 ⫾ 51 -0.03 ⫾ 0.06 -0.09 ⫾ 0.11
CooperVision Echelon 95 ⫾ 63 -0.05 ⫾ 0.08 -0.1 ⫾ 0.13
Kirschen et al3 19 52.5 Acuvue Random dot 50.8 ⫾ 25.4 +0.01 ⫾ 0.05 +0.05 ⫾ 0.08
Fisher et al 17
42 52.3 ⫾ 1.2 Focus Progressive Random dot About 75 -0.01 About +0.05
Acuvue About 95 +0.03 About +0.05
Richdale et al4 38 50.1 ⫾ 4.7 B&L Soflens Random dot 126 ⫾ 137 -0.12 ⫾ 0.09 +0.01 ⫾ 0.12
Freeman et al 20
8 63 ⫾ 4 Diffrax Titmus 100 About -0.02 About 5.5†
Woods et al 21
25 45.4 ⫾ 2.8 Air Optix Aqua Low add Random dot 54 ⫾ 35 -0.03 ⫾ 0.07 -0.01 ⫾ 0.08
Gupta et al5 20 55.0 ⫾ 5.1 PureVision‡ TNO random dot 174.0 ⫾ 95.2 +0.05 ⫾ 0.08 +0.21 ⫾ 0.13
Low add 152.7 ⫾ 101.7 +0.02 ⫾ 0.06 +0.16 ⫾ 0.14
High add 200.0 ⫾ 84.9 +0.08 ⫾ 0.10 +0.27 ⫾ 0.09

SD: standard deviation; N/A: not available; † N Type reading acuity; ‡ mean values for low and high addition

Table 2. Outcomes of several studies evaluating near stereopsis after simultaneous vision multifocal contact lenses

accurate for a working distance of 40 cm
and 6.0 cm interpupillary distance,
changes from both values produce differ-
ent outcomes, which may be incorrect.
The results measured using the Howard-
Dolman apparatus were better, namely,
about 22 seconds of arc. Using this
method, we can establish the stereoscopic
threshold for each patient and the
measure is more accurate compared to
standard clinical stereotests. Values for a
normal population using this method vary
with age and a result of 14 seconds of arc
or better is expected for an adult with a
normal binocular system.8,27 Our results in
the multifocal group were slightly worse
than those reported in the literature and
those found in the SCL group (despite not
being statistically significant) the differ-
ences may come from the different retinal
imagery created on the retina by the mul-
tifocal contact lens (near blur of 0.01
logMAR visual acuity).
No previous studies have analysed stere-
oacuity in patients fitted with the Proclear
Multifocal contact lens, either using vecto-
graphic or the Howard-Dolman method.
The published research studies were done
using the Titmus and Randot tests with
other models of concentric refractive,
aspheric refractive and diffractive multifo-
cal contact lenses. Table 2 shows the main
outcomes of previous literature evaluating
near stereopsis in patients fitted with simul-
taneous vision multifocal lenses. The first
study was done by Sheedy and colleagues18
showing a stereoacuity of about 60 seconds
of arc. Back, Grant and Hine19 fitted 15
patients with the concentric centre-near
bifocal lens of CooperVision and the
Echelon lens and found 92 ⫾ 51 and 95 ⫾
63 seconds of arc, respectively. Krischen,
Hung and Nakano3 with the Acuvue lens
found a mean value of 50.8 ⫾ 25.4 seconds
of arc. Worse values were found by Fisher,
Baumann and Schwallie17 on 42 patients
with the same lens and the Focus Progres-
sives. Richdale, Mitchell and Zadnik4 with
the Bausch & Lomb Soflens also found
worse results with 126 ⫾ 137 seconds of arc
on 38 patients. Freeman and Charman20
using a diffractive lens reported a mean
value of 100 seconds of arc.
Recently, Woods, Woods and Fonn21
with the Air Optix Aqua low addition
contact lens found better values (54 ⫾ 35
seconds of arc) and in contrast, Gupta,
Naroo and Wolffsohn5 found worse values
with the Pure vision (174.0 ⫾ 95.2 seconds
of arc). Considering all these studies, it is
obvious that there is variability among
results (from 50 to 174 seconds of arc).
The use of different optical principles
(refraction or diffraction) and the design
of the lens (concentric or aspheric and
addition power) and hence the image
created on the retina makes these differ-
ences plausible.
Comparing our results with those found
in previous studies using the same ste-
reotest, we may observe similar values
reported with the Acuvue3 and Air Optix
Aqua21 lenses (about 50 to 55 seconds of
arc). At this point, we should consider that
differences in interpupillary distance of
the patients and the working distance of
the test as variable factors to be considered
when comparing different studies. Other
ways to restore near vision with contact
lenses such as monovision show worse
values for stereoacuity (using vectographic
tests) with means of 287.8 ⫾ 184.3 seconds
of arc,3 205 ⫾ 2144,4 273 ⫾ 102,5 113 ⫾
12519 and 384 seconds of arc.28 Undoubt-
edly, simultaneous vision lenses give
improved stereoacuity over monovision
correction. The design of the Proclear
Multifocal lens combining multifocality
with monovision does not affect stereoacu-
ity as traditional monovision techniques.

Clinical and Experimental Optometry 94.1 January 2011 © 2010 The Authors
80 Clinical and Experimental Optometry © 2010 Optometrists Association Australia

The stereoacuity measured with the
Howard-Dolman method reveals different
outcomes in comparison to our findings
and previous literature using vectographic
tests. The Howard-Dolman apparatus
analyses accurately the stereoscopic
threshold in contrast to more commercial
and clinically used vectographic tests such
as the Titmus and Random dot. Disparity
steps, interpupillary distance, working dis-
tance and monocular cues in vectographic
tests influence the outcomes and caution
should be exercised when using it. Con-
sidering all outcomes, vectographic and
those found with the Howard-Dolman, we
have found acceptable levels of stereoacu-
ity. Considering the values obtained, the
reduction of contrast of the in-focus image
at near provoked by the defocused image
of the distance focus, both in the domi-
nant and non-dominant eyes, does not
seem to affect the stereoacuity. The effects
of monocular blur, such as in monovision,
on stereoacuity, are known to be greater
than the effects of binocular blur, such as
in multifocal contact29 and intraocular30
lenses. Then, we may conclude that stere-
oacuity is minimally affected, if at all, by
multifocal-induced retinal blur (results
were comparable to those found with the
SCL group).
In conclusion, the results of this study
show that the balanced Proclear Multifo-
cal simultaneous vision contact lens pro-
vided good visual acuity preserving good
stereopsis, comparable to the findings
when using distance contact lenses com-
bined with reading spectacles. The com-
bined design of multifocal optics with one
lens biased to distance viewing and the
other lens biased toward near viewing
minimally affects stereoacuity in patients
fitted with these lenses.
GRANTS AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT
We thank CooperVision for providing all
contact lenses for this study. This research
was supported in part by Ministerio de
Ciencia e Innovación Research Grants
(#SAF2008-01114# and #SAF2009-
13342#). The authors have no proprietary
interest in any of the products mentioned
in this article.
© 2010 The Authors
Clinical and Experimental Optometry © 2010 Optometrists Association Australia
Stereoacuity with balanced presbyopic contact lenses Ferrer-Blasco and Madrid-Costa
REFERENCES
1. Westin E, Wick B, Harrist RB. Factors influ-
encing success of monovision contact lens
fitting: survey of contact lens diplomates.
Optometry 2000; 71: 757–763.
2. Jain S, Arora I, Azar DT. Success of mono-
vision in presbyopes: review of the literature
and potential applications to refractive
surgery. Surv Ophthalmol 1996; 40: 491–496.
3. Kirschen DG, Hung CC, Nakano TR. Com-
parison of suppression, stereoacuity, and
interocular differences in visual acuity in
monovision and Acuvue bifocal contact
lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76: 832–837.
4. Richdale K, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. Com-
parison of multifocal and monovision soft
contact lens corrections in patients with
low-astigmatic presbyopia. Optom Vis Sci
2006; 83: 266–273.
5. Gupta N, Naroo SA, Wolffsohn JS. Visual
comparison of multifocal contact lens to
monovision. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: 98–105.
6. Wood ILC. Stereopsis with spatially-
degrade images. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt
1983; 3: 337–340.
7. Legee GE, Gu Y. Stereopsis and contrast.
Vision Res 1989; 29: 989–1004.
8. Saladin JJ. Effects of heterophoria on stere-
opsis. Optom Vis Sci 1995; 72: 487–492.
9. Reading RE, Tanlamai T. The threshold of
stereopsis in the presence of differences in
magnification of the ocular images. J Am
Optom Assoc 1980; 51: 593–595.
10. Lovasik JV, Szymkiw M. Effects of aniseiko-
nia, anisometropia, accommodation, retinal
illuminance and pupil size on stereopsis.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1985; 26: 741–750.
11. Jani SN. The age factor in stereopsis screen-
ing. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 1966;
43: 653–657.
12. Heckmann T, Schor CM. Is edge informa-
tion for stereoacuity spatially channelled?
Vision Res 1989; 29: 593–607.
13. Greene HA, Madden DJ. Adult age differ-
ence in visual acuity, stereopsis and contrast
sensitivity. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1987; 64:
749–753.
14. Adams AJ, Wong LS, Wong L, Could B.
Visual acuity changes with age: some new
perspectives. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1988;
65: 403–406.
15. Montés-Micó R, Alió JL. Distance and near
contrast sensitivity function after multifocal
intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract
Refract Surg 2003; 29: 703–711.
16. Montés-Micó R, España E, Bueno I,
Charman WN, Menezo JL. Visual perfor-
mance with multifocal intraocular lenses:
mesopic contrast sensitivity under distance
and near conditions. Ophthalmology 2004;
111: 85–96.
17. Fisher K, Bauman E, Schwallie J. Evaluation
of two new soft contact lenses for correction
of presbyopia: the Focus Progressives mul-
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 94.1 January 2011
tifocal and the Acuvue Bifocal. Int Contact
Lens Clin 2000; 26: 92–103.
18. Sheedy JE, Harris MG, Bronge MR, Joe SM,
Mook MA. Task and visual performance
with concentric bifocal contact lenses.
Optom Vis Sci 1991; 68: 537–541.
19. Back A, Grant T, Hine N. Comparative
visual performance of three presbyopic
contact lens corrections. Optom Vis Sci 1992;
69: 474–480.
20. Freeman MH, Charman WN. An explora-
tion of modified monovision with diffrac-
tive bifocal contact lenses. Contact Lens Ant
Eye 2007; 30: 189–196.
21. Woods J, Woods CA, Fonn D. Early symp-
tomatic presbyopes: what correction modal-
ity works best? Eye Contact Lens 2009; 35:
221–226.
22. Reading RW. Binocular Vision. Boston:
Butterworths, 1983. p 175.
23. Knight KK, Apsey DA, Jackson WG, Dennis
RJ. A comparison of stereopsis with ANVIS
and F4949 night vision goggles. Aviat Space
Environ Med 1998; 69: 99–103.
24. Sanders E, Wagner H, Reich LN. Visual
acuity and balanced progressive simulta-
neous vision multifocal contact lenses. Eye
Contact Lens 2008; 34: 293–296.
25. Guillon M, Maissa C, Cooper P, Girard-
Claudon K, Poling TR. Visual performance
of a multi-zone bifocal and a progressive
multifocal contact lens. CLAO J 2002; 28:
88–93.
26. Elkington AR, Frank HJ. Clinical Optics.
London: Blackwell Scientific Publications,
1984.
27. Saladin JJ, Alspaugh DH, Penrod LR. Effect
of vision therapy on stereophotogrammet-
ric profiling: a controlled clinical trial. Am J
Optom Physiol Opt 1988; 65: 325–330.
28. Gutkowski M, Cassin B. Stereopsis and
monovision in the contact lens manage-
ment of presbyopia. Bin Vis Q 1991; 6: 31–36.
29. Goodwin RT, Romano PE. Stereoacuity
degradation by experimental and real
monocular and binocular amblyopia. Invest
Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1985; 26: 917–923.
30. Ferrer-Blasco T, Montés-Micó R, Cerviño A,
Alfonso JF, González-Méijome JM. Stereoa-
cuity after refractive lens exchange with
AcrySof ReSTOR intraocular lens implanta-
tion. J Refract Surg 2009; 25: 1000–1004.
Corresponding author:
Dr Teresa Ferrer-Blasco
Optometry Research Group (GIO)
Optics Department, Faculty of Physics
University of Valencia
C/o Dr Moliner
50. 46100 Burjassot (Valencia)
SPAIN
E-mail: teresa.ferrer@uv.es
81