A Comparison of Four Different Lens Mappers

被引:0
|
作者
Larrue, Denis [1 ]
Legeard, Morgane [1 ]
机构
[1] Lab Alutec, Morez, France
关键词
lens mapper; optical power; spherical power; cylinder power; PROGRESSIVE ADDITION LENSES; OFF-AXIS MEASUREMENTS; SPECTACLE LENSES; OPTICS;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose. Recently, a number of lens mappers have become available for measuring the detailed optical properties of progressive addition lenses (PALs). The goal of this study was to compare the results obtained from several different lens mappers for a range of different lenses. Methods. The optical power maps of six lenses-two single-vision lenses, a parallel-sided slide, a flat prism, and two progressive lenses-were measured using four different lens mappers: the Dual Lens Mapper, the Nimo TR4005, the Rotlex Class Plus, and the Visionix VM2500. The repeatability of the instruments was also evaluated. Results. All lens mappers gave very repeatable measurements; however, measurements among the lens mappers varied considerably. Differences appeared to be above the tolerance at the optical center for measurements of single-vision lenses, and these differences increase in the periphery up to 1.00 diopter. Similar differences were observed for the PALs, even increased by prism and base curve effect, with figures greater than 1 diopter in the periphery. The measurements made on the prism and lenses with different base curves suggest that base curve, thickness, and prismatic effect can all contribute to the differences among instruments. Conclusions. Measurements of a given lens taken with different lens mappers can vary substantially. Particular caution should be exercised when interpreting power maps for PALs taken with different instruments.
引用
收藏
页码:E260 / E266
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Preliminary comparison of different neural fuzzy mappers for load curve short term prediction
    Malkocevic, Dzenana
    Konjic, Tatjana
    Miranda, Vladimiro
    NEUREL 2006: EIGHT SEMINAR ON NEURAL NETWORK APPLICATIONS IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, PROCEEDINGS, 2006, : 213 - +
  • [2] Comparison of soft contact lens comfort using three contact lens materials and four contact lens solutions
    Berntsen, David A.
    Hickson-Curran, Sheila B.
    Jones, Lyndon William
    Mathew, Jessica Horne
    Mirza, Aftab A.
    Morgan, Philip B.
    Schulze, Marc M.
    Nichols, Jason J.
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2014, 55 (13)
  • [3] Among Fumblers, Talkers, Mappers and Organisers: four applications of process orientation
    Hellstrom, Andreas
    Eriksson, Henrik
    TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT & BUSINESS EXCELLENCE, 2013, 24 (5-6) : 733 - 751
  • [4] Comparison of four different visibility analyzing approaches
    Shu Ju Cai Ji Yu Chu Li, 1 (122-127):
  • [5] Comparison of Four Immobilization Methods for Different Transaminases
    Heinks, Tobias
    Montua, Nicolai
    Teune, Michelle
    Liedtke, Jan
    Hoehne, Matthias
    Bornscheuer, Uwe T.
    von Mollard, Gabriele Fischer
    CATALYSTS, 2023, 13 (02)
  • [6] A comparison of four different endovenous ablation techniques
    Korkmaz, Kemal
    Yener, Ali Umit
    Genc, Serhat Bahadir
    Gedik, Hikmet Selcuk
    Budak, Ali Baran
    Cagli, Kerim
    TURK GOGUS KALP DAMAR CERRAHISI DERGISI-TURKISH JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2017, 25 (02): : 209 - 215
  • [7] A comparison of four different block bootstrap methods
    Radovanov, Boris
    Marcikic, Aleksandra
    CROATIAN OPERATIONAL RESEARCH REVIEW, 2014, 5 (02) : 189 - 202
  • [8] Comparison of four different digital watermarking techniques
    Song, YJ
    Tan, TN
    2000 5TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SIGNAL PROCESSING PROCEEDINGS, VOLS I-III, 2000, : 946 - 950
  • [9] Comparison of four different phenylalanine determination methods
    Fingerhut, R
    Stehn, M
    Kohlschutter, A
    CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA, 1997, 264 (01) : 65 - 73
  • [10] A comparison of four different techniques of assisted hatching
    Balaban, B
    Urman, B
    Alatas, C
    Mercan, R
    Mumcu, A
    Isiklar, A
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2002, 17 (05) : 1239 - 1243