J Korean Med Sci.  2017 May;32(5):850-857. 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.5.850.

Comparison of Objective and Subjective Changes Induced by Multiple-Pinhole Glasses and Single-Pinhole Glasses

• Kim WS
• Park IK
• Park YK
• Chun YS

• KMID: 2375088
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.5.850

Abstract

Multiple-pinhole (MPH) glasses are currently sold in many countries with unproven advertisements; however, their objective and subjective effects have not been investigated. Therefore, to investigate the effects of MPH glasses excluding the single-pinhole (SPH) effect, we compared the visual functional changes, reading speed, and ocular discomfort after reading caused by MPH and SPH glasses. Healthy 36 participants with a mean age of 33.1 years underwent examinations of pupil size, visual acuity (VA), depth of focus (DOF), and near point accommodation (NPA); tests for visual field (VF), contrast sensitivity (CS), stereopsis, and reading speed; and a survey of ocular discomfort after reading. Both types of pinhole glasses enlarged pupil diameter and improved VA, DOF, and NPA. However, CS, stereopsis, and VF parameters deteriorated. In comparison with SPH glasses, MPH glasses induced smaller pupil dilation (5.3 and 5.9 mm, P < 0.001) and showed better VF parameters with preserved peripheral VF. However, no significant difference was observed for VA, DOF, NPA, stereopsis, and CS. Reading speed using pinhole glasses was significantly slower than baseline; SPH glasses showed the slowest reading speed. Both types of glasses caused significant ocular discomfort after reading compared with baseline, and symptoms were worst with MPH glasses. In conclusion, both types of pinhole glasses had positive effects due to the pinhole effect; however, they had negative effects on VF, CS, stereopsis, reading speed, and ocular discomfort. In spite of the increased luminance and preserved peripheral VF with MPHs, these glasses caused more severe ocular discomfort than SPH glasses. This clinical trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02572544).

Keyword

Pinhole Glasses; Reading Speed; Visual Function

MeSH Terms

Contrast Sensitivity
Depth Perception
Eyeglasses*
Glass*
Pupil
Visual Acuity
Visual Fields

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 MPH glasses (A) and SPH glasses (B). SPH glasses were modified from MPH glasses by blocking all pinholes except a central hole on the visual axis. MPH = multiple-pinhole, SPH = single-pinhole.

• 

  Fig. 2 Effects of SPH and MPH glasses on distance and near VA. (A) Mean DVASP was significantly better than mean UDVA. The difference between DVASP and DVAMP was not significant. (B) Mean NVASP was significantly better than mean UNVA. The difference between NVASP and NVAMP was not significant. SPH = single-pinhole, MPH = multiple-pinhole, VA = visual acuity, UDVA = uncorrected distance visual acuity, DVASP = distance visual acuity with single-pinhole glasses, DVAMP = distance visual acuity with multiple-pinhole glasses, UNVA = uncorrected near visual acuity, NVASP = near visual acuity with single-pinhole glasses, NVAMP = near visual acuity with multiple-pinhole glasses.

• 

  Fig. 3 Effects of SPH and MPH glasses. (A) On DOF. Mean DOF without any device (baseline) was 2.39 ± 1.27 D, and all participants showed increased DOF with either type of pinhole glasses compared with baseline. Differences in DOF were not significantly different between SPH and MPH glasses. (B) On accommodative amplitude. The difference in mean accommodative amplitude with or without SPH glasses was significant (12.06 ± 2.91 D with vs. 8.44 ± 1.77 D without). Differences between SPH and MPH glasses were not significant. SPH = single-pinhole, MPH = multiple-pinhole, DOF = depth of focus, D = diopter.

• 

  Fig. 4 VF test. (A) Normal without any device. (B) MD decreased to −18.55 dB and PSD increased to 13.62 dB with SPH glasses. VFI decreased to 72% and about 15° of the peripheral field area within the central 30° were blocked by SPH glasses. (C) MD decreased from −0.73 to −4.48 dB, and PSD increased from 2.10 to 2.48 dB with MPH glasses. VFI decreased from 100% to 98%. Irregular abnormalities of retinal sensitivity were observed at the peripheral field area. VF = visual field, MD = mean deviation, PSD = pattern standard deviation, VFI = visual field index, SPH = single-pinhole, MPH = multiple-pinhole.

• 

  Fig. 5 Photographs showing the effects of pinhole glasses on reading. It must be considered that photographs differ from actual vision while wearing pinhole glasses because they were taken with a digital camera. This simulation does not show the vertex distance between cornea and the glasses or correlation between participant's pupil size and pinhole interval. (A) The photograph shows the visual quality without pinhole. (B) There is peripheral VF constriction with a SPH, although blurring on the central field area was not observed. (C) There is no peripheral VF constriction; however, blurring in the overlapping area is observed with MPH of 3-mm size. (D) The overlapping image is not shown, but part of the central VF was blocked by the opaque pinhole edge with multiple pinholes of 2-mm size. VF = visual field, SPH = single-pinhole, MPH = multiple-pinhole.

Reference

1. Federal Trade Commision (US). Federal Trade Commision File No. 922-3097, 922-3096, 922-3139, and 922-3183. Washington, D.C.: Federal Trade Commission;1993.

2. Kim WS, Park IK, Chun YS. Quantitative analysis of functional changes caused by pinhole glasses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55:6679–6685.

3. Wittenberg S. Pinhole eyewear systems: a special report. J Am Optom Assoc. 1993; 64:112–116.

4. Chylack LT Jr, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, Leske MC, Bullimore MA, Bailey IL, Friend J, McCarthy D, Wu SY. The lens opacities classification system III. The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993; 111:831–836.

5. Koslowe K, Glassman T, Tzanani-Levi C, Shneor E. Accommodative amplitude determination: pull-away versus push-up method. Optom Vis Dev. 2010; 41:28–32.

6. Ames SL, Wolffsohn JS, McBrien NA. The development of a symptom questionnaire for assessing virtual reality viewing using a head-mounted display. Optom Vis Sci. 2005; 82:168–176.

7. Berman SM, Fein G, Jewett DL, Ashford F. Luminance-controlled pupil size affects landolt C task performance. J Illum Eng Soc. 1993; 22:150–165.

8. Watson AB, Yellott JI. A unified formula for light-adapted pupil size. J Vis. 2012; 12:12.

9. Abdul N, Meyer N, van Bosch M, van Zyl A, Viljoen M, Carlson AS. The effect of pinholes of different sizes on visual acuity under different refracting states and ambient lighting conditions. South Afr Optom. 2009; 68:38–48.

10. Wang Y, Zhao K, Jin Y, Niu Y, Zuo T. Changes of higher order aberration with various pupil sizes in the myopic eye. J Refract Surg. 2003; 19:S270–S274.

11. Berman S. The coming revolution in lighting practice. Energy Users News. 2000; 25:24–26.

12. Doble N, Miller DT, Yoon G, Williams DR. Requirements for discrete actuator and segmented wavefront correctors for aberration compensation in two large populations of human eyes. Appl Opt. 2007; 46:4501–4514.

13. Campbell FW, Gregory AH. Effect of size of pupil on visual acuity. Nature. 1960; 187:1121–1123.

14. Tucker J, Charman WN. Depth of focus and accommodation for sinusoidal gratings as a function of luminance. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1986; 63:58–70.

15. Oshima S. Studies on the depth-of-focus of the eye. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 1958; 2:63–72.

16. Ripps H, Chin NB, Siegel IM, Breinin GM. The effect of pupil size on accommodation, convergence, and the AC/A ratio. Invest Ophthalmol. 1962; 1:127–135.

17. Peli E, Arend L, Labianca AT. Contrast perception across changes in luminance and spatial frequency. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 1996; 13:1953–1959.

18. Rabin J. Luminance effects on visual acuity and small letter contrast sensitivity. Optom Vis Sci. 1994; 71:685–688.

19. Artal P, Guirao A. Contributions of the cornea and the lens to the aberrations of the human eye. Opt Lett. 1998; 23:1713–1715.

20. Mehta M, Ramkissoon P, Bhagwanjee AM. A comparison of the effect of reduced illumination and tinted lenses on stereospsis at near. South Afr Optom. 2007; 66:3–11.

21. Lovasik JV, Szymkiw M. Effects of aniseikonia, anisometropia, accommodation, retinal illuminance, and pupil size on stereopsis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1985; 26:741–750.

22. Rayner K. Eye movements, perceptual span, and reading disability. Ann Dyslexia. 1983; 33:163–173.

23. Rubin GS, Turano K. Reading without saccadic eye movements. Vision Res. 1992; 32:895–902.

24. Ramulu PY, Swenor BK, Jefferys JL, Friedman DS, Rubin GS. Difficulty with out-loud and silent reading in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54:666–672.