D. Bradley

Form deprivation myopia in adolescent monkeys.

BACKGROUNDnEarly in life, at ages corresponding to the rapid infantile phase of ocular growth in humans, visual feedback can modulate refractive development in monkeys and many other species. To determine if vision-dependent mechanisms can still influence refractive development in primates during the slow juvenile phase of ocular growth, the time period when myopia typically develops in human children, we examined the effects of form deprivation on adolescent monkeys.nnnMETHODSnUnilateral, form deprivation was produced in four rhesus monkeys by surgically fusing the eyelids of one eye. The onset of deprivation was between 3.7 and 5 years of age, which corresponds to onset ages between approximately 15 and 20 human years. The ocular effects of form deprivation were assessed by cycloplegic retinoscopy and A-scan ultrasonography.nnnRESULTSnAt the onset of form deprivation all four monkeys were isometropic and the axial dimensions in the two eyes were well matched. After 71 to 80 weeks of form deprivation, all of the deprived eyes had become relatively more myopic than their fellow non-treated eyes (mean anisometropia = -2.03 +/- 0.78 D) and they exhibited relative increases in vitreous chamber depth (mean = 0.55 +/- 0.31 mm) and axial length (mean = 0.49 +/- 0.35 mm).nnnDISCUSSIONnOur results demonstrate that vision-dependent mechanisms can influence ocular growth and refractive development in teenage monkeys. These results raise the possibility that visual experience may be involved in the genesis of school-age myopia in children.

Diffuser contact lenses retard axial elongation in infant rhesus monkeys

In each of five monkeys, one eye was fitted with a diffuser lens at birth. This lens allowed pattern vision, but also reduced contrast by about 1 log unit. In four out of five monkeys, the treated eyes were shorter and more hyperopic than the untreated fellow eyes. At 25 weeks of age, interocular differences (OD -- OS) of the experimental group were significantly greater than interocular differences of age-matched normal monkeys for both axial length (P < 0.05) and refractive error (P < 0.02). In addition, while the treated eyes were significantly different from normal eyes for both axial length measurements (P < 0.01) and refractive error (P < 0.01), there were no significant differences between the untreated fellow eyes and normal eyes. In primates less severe pattern deprivation appears to produce an effect on eye growth that is opposite to that of severe pattern deprivation (little or no pattern vision), which typically results in axial myopia.

The refractive development of untreated eyes of rhesus monkeys varies according to the treatment received by their fellow eyes.

To determine the extent to which the visual experience of one eye may influence the refractive development of its fellow eye, we analyzed the data of untreated (UT) eyes of monkeys that received different types of unilateral pattern deprivation. Subjects were 15 juvenile rhesus monkeys, with five monkeys in each of three treatment groups: aphakic eyes with optical correction (AC), aphakic eyes with no correction (ANC), and eyes that were occluded with an opaque contact lens (OC). Under general anaesthesia, refractive error (D) was determined by cycloplegic retinoscopy and axial length (mm) was determined with A-scan ultrasonography. For measurements of refractive error of the UT eyes, there was a significant main effect of groups according to the treatment of the fellow eyes, F(2, 12) = 6.6. While UT eyes paired with AC fellow eyes (mean = +4.2 D) were significantly more hyperopic than the eyes of age-matched normal monkeys (mean = +2.4 D), t(25), = 2.5, UT eyes paired with OC fellow eyes (mean = -0.5 D) were significantly more myopic than the eyes of normal monkeys, t(25) = -9. UT eyes paired with ANC fellow eyes (mean = +1.9 D) were not significantly different from normal eyes. For measurements of axial length there was also a significant main effect of groups, F(2, 12) = 6.9. While UT eyes paired with AC fellow eyes (mean = 16.9 mm) were significantly shorter than the eyes of age-matched normal monkeys (mean = 17.5 mm), t(25) = 2.3, UT eyes paired with OC fellow eyes (mean = 18.1 mm) were significantly longer than the eyes of normal monkeys, t(25) = 2.3. UT eyes paired with ANC fellow eyes (mean = 17.5 mm) were not significantly different from the eyes of normal monkeys. The measurements of axial length and of refractive error of the UT eyes were also significantly correlated with one another, probably indicating that the differences in refractive error were due to differences in axial length, r = -0.8. The present data reveal that despite normal visual experience, UT eyes can have their refractive development altered, systematically, simply as a function of the type of pattern deprivation received by their fellow eyes. These data add to the growing evidence that there is an interocular mechanism that is active during emmetropization. As a consequence, future models of eye growth will need to consider both: (1) the direct influence of visual input on the growing eye; as well as (2) the indirect influence coming from the fellow eye.