ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2026
Effects of Myopia Control Spectacle Lenses on Peripheral Refraction and Contrast: Insights From Optical Modeling.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What a Lens Imposes and What a Child Sees Are Not the Same Thing.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate potential optical cues underlying myopia control effects by examining how lenslet-array spectacle lenses influence peripheral refraction and image contrast. Methods: Three commercial lenslet-array spectacle lenses-MiyoSmart, Stellest, and diverse segmented defocus optics-were reconstructed in Zemax OpticStudio, together with a conventional single vision (SV) lens as a reference. The reconstructed lenses were coupled with the Navarro eye model to simulate spectacle wearing after experimental validation of the lens models. Optical performance was evaluated under both distance and near viewing conditions with accommodative lags of 0.50 diopters (D) and 1.00 D. Peripheral refraction components (M and J0) were derived from wavefront data. Point spread functions and modulation transfer functions were obtained, with the area under the modulation transfer function curve subsequently calculated. Results: Simulated and experimental point spread functions showed strong agreement, confirming the reliability of the constructed spectacle models. Compared with the SV lens, the lenslet-array introduced M fluctuations (within ±0.25 D), manifesting as alternating positive and negative shifts relative to the SV baseline. Only the Stellest lens exhibited minimal myopic defocus over a limited eccentricity range, while the other designs failed to induce peripheral myopic defocus. In the horizontal meridian between 12.5° and 17.5° eccentricity, lenslet-array lenses exhibited reduced contrast at low spatial frequencies (≤6 cycles/degree) but increased cutoff frequencies and relatively enhanced contrast at higher frequencies (9-15 cycles/degree). Similar patterns were observed under near viewing with a 0.50 D accommodative lag. Conclusions: The myopia control efficacy of lenslet-array lenses may not be fully explained by the peripheral myopic defocus hypothesis. Instead, the observed reduction in low spatial frequency contrast, coupled with an elevated cutoff frequency that preserves high-frequency information, may provide the critical optical cues for slowing myopia progression. These hypothesized mechanisms warrant further clinical investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.