EVALUATION OF AGE-RELATED VISUAL FIELD CHANGES WITH DIFFERENT REFRACTIVE ERRORS

Background: Visual field sensitivity variations associated with refractive errors in young adults remain inadequately characterized, particularly in relation to aging and regional differences. While previous studies have focused on elderly populations, limited data exist on how myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism affect visual field sensitivity in individuals aged 18 to 30 years. Understanding these variations is crucial for refining clinical assessment strategies and optimizing refractive error management to ensure optimal visual function. Objective: To evaluate visual field sensitivity patterns in young adults with different refractive errors and assess the relationship between age, refractive status, and regional variations in visual field sensitivity. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 58 participants, including 26 myopic, 2 hyperopic, and 30 astigmatic individuals aged 18–30 years. Participants underwent refractive assessment using an auto-refractometer, followed by subjective refraction with a trial frame. Visual acuity was measured using the Snellen chart, and visual field sensitivity was analyzed using Humphrey perimetry. Sensitivity deviations were recorded for the superior, inferior, nasal, and temporal quadrants in both eyes, with and without refractive correction. Results: In myopic individuals, the superior field remained stable (-0.25 to -3.75 D), while the inferior field showed age-related declines (-0.3 dB at -1.75 D, -0.5 dB at -3.25 D, -0.75 dB at -2.0 D). Nasal deviations ranged from -0.05 dB to -1.25 dB, with temporal sensitivity declining by -0.5 dB at -4.0 D in non-corrected individuals. Hyperopic participants exhibited increased sensitivity in the superior (+1.5 to +2.6 dB), inferior (+2.0 dB), nasal (+1.0 to +1.5 dB), and temporal (+2.0 to +3.0 dB) fields. Astigmatism showed no superior field changes but demonstrated nasal deviations (-0.7 to -1.0 dB) and temporal reductions (-0.09 to -0.7 dB) in the right eye. The left eye exhibited inferior (-0.4 to -1.0 dB), nasal (-0.2 to -1.0 dB), and temporal (-0.3 to -1.0 dB) deviations. Conclusion: Visual field sensitivity in young adults varies significantly based on refractive error type and correction status. Myopia exhibited age-related declines, hyperopia showed enhanced sensitivity, and astigmatism demonstrated regional variations. These findings highlight the need for individualized approaches in clinical refractive management.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Insights-Journal of Health and Rehabilitation
Published
2025-02-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.71000/3xdkbx52
Primary Topic
Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

EVALUATION OF AGE-RELATED VISUAL FIELD CHANGES WITH DIFFERENT REFRACTIVE ERRORS

G. Çelik Gül, Saad Yousif, Rabia Akram, Iqra Manzoor et al.
Insights-Journal of Health and Rehabilitation
Visual perception and processing mechanisms
article

EVALUATION OF AGE-RELATED VISUAL FIELD CHANGES WITH DIFFERENT REFRACTIVE ERRORS

G. Çelik Gül, Saad Yousif, Rabia Akram, Iqra Manzoor, Ayesha Saleem, Hamna Ahmad, Aleeza Naeem, Prof Dr. Rashida Perveen
article en

Abstract

Background: Visual field sensitivity variations associated with refractive errors in young adults remain inadequately characterized, particularly in relation to aging and regional differences. While previous studies have focused on elderly populations, limited data exist on how myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism affect visual field sensitivity in individuals aged 18 to 30 years. Understanding these variations is crucial for refining clinical assessment strategies and optimizing refractive error management to ensure optimal visual function. Objective: To evaluate visual field sensitivity patterns in young adults with different refractive errors and assess the relationship between age, refractive status, and regional variations in visual field sensitivity. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 58 participants, including 26 myopic, 2 hyperopic, and 30 astigmatic individuals aged 18–30 years. Participants underwent refractive assessment using an auto-refractometer, followed by subjective refraction with a trial frame. Visual acuity was measured using the Snellen chart, and visual field sensitivity was analyzed using Humphrey perimetry. Sensitivity deviations were recorded for the superior, inferior, nasal, and temporal quadrants in both eyes, with and without refractive correction. Results: In myopic individuals, the superior field remained stable (-0.25 to -3.75 D), while the inferior field showed age-related declines (-0.3 dB at -1.75 D, -0.5 dB at -3.25 D, -0.75 dB at -2.0 D). Nasal deviations ranged from -0.05 dB to -1.25 dB, with temporal sensitivity declining by -0.5 dB at -4.0 D in non-corrected individuals. Hyperopic participants exhibited increased sensitivity in the superior (+1.5 to +2.6 dB), inferior (+2.0 dB), nasal (+1.0 to +1.5 dB), and temporal (+2.0 to +3.0 dB) fields. Astigmatism showed no superior field changes but demonstrated nasal deviations (-0.7 to -1.0 dB) and temporal reductions (-0.09 to -0.7 dB) in the right eye. The left eye exhibited inferior (-0.4 to -1.0 dB), nasal (-0.2 to -1.0 dB), and temporal (-0.3 to -1.0 dB) deviations. Conclusion: Visual field sensitivity in young adults varies significantly based on refractive error type and correction status. Myopia exhibited age-related declines, hyperopia showed enhanced sensitivity, and astigmatism demonstrated regional variations. These findings highlight the need for individualized approaches in clinical refractive management.

Insights-Journal of Health and RehabilitationVol. 3(3 (Health & Rehab))
King Edward Medical University (PK), Superior University (PK)
Openalex Percentile: Top 98%
Visual perception and processing mechanisms
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.