Multi-lens system for presbyopia

Abstract

Described herein are systems and / or methods for designing contact lens systems with inter-ocular refractive differences (i.e., refractive disparity) for presbyopia. An exemplary method can include the step of determining a plurality of lenses included in a contact lens system for treating presbyopia. Each lens of the plurality of lenses can be configured for optical correction and may have an optical power distribution associated therewith. The plurality of lenses can be grouped based on optical correction. Each lens of these lenses in a particular group can have a different focal power distribution. The example method can include the step of creating a fitness guidance based at least on the plurality of lens and add requirements. This fitness guidance enables the provision of effective add inter-ocular disparity. The inter-ocular parallax of the effective add can be determined by optimizing monocular performance over a range of adjustment requirements and brightness levels.

Description

Background Art

[0001] In general, multifocal or extended depth of focus (EDOF) lenses significantly mitigate the effects of presbyopia, but they come with a trade-off in performance. Typically, peak distance vision is sacrificed to provide improved near performance. While some of the market-leading multifocal simultaneous vision lens systems (multifocals (MF)) have excellent visual performance, simulations show that there is still opportunity to improve performance across the range of accommodative demand, especially at near. Summary of the invention

[0002] The lenses, lens systems and methods of the present invention provide an excellent trade-off with respect to overall visual performance within a range of accommodation requirements relative to MF. This can be achieved by further increasing the monocular depth of focus (DOF) by exploiting the ability of the visual system to tolerate interocular refractive differences (i.e., anisometropia). Alternatively or in addition, unlike MF, the present design employs more add power, more stock keeping unit (SKU) design variations, where each SKU distinguishes a different prescription (Rx), and a visual performance manifold optimized fit / re-prescription (e.g., fit guidance).

[0003] Systems and / or methods for designing a contact lens system with anisometropia for presbyopia are described herein. An exemplary method may include the step of determining a plurality of lens types included in a contact lens system for treating presbyopia. The lens system may include at least three lens types (identified as lens A, lens B, and lens C). The lens types may be changed by effective add or DOF, or both. Each of the plurality of lenses may be configured for optical correction and may have a power profile associated therewith. The plurality of lenses may be grouped based on optical correction. Each of the lenses of a particular type may have a different power profile. The following factors may be considered to change the optically corrected normalized power profile within the optical correction range for each of the lens identifiers to improve performance: [1] Rx, age, and accommodative dependence of eye spherical aberration, and / or [2] Rx, age, and brightness dependence of entrance pupil diameter. Other combinations of performance factors may be used, and may include single, discrete factors. The exemplary method may include the step of creating a fit guide based at least on the plurality of lenses and the add requirement, the fit guide indicating which lenses of the plurality of lenses are to be worn on the dominant eye and the non-dominant eye. The fit guide can provide an inter-ocular disparity for effective add.

[0004] Systems and / or methods for designing a contact lens system with anisometropia for presbyopia are described herein. An exemplary method can include the step of determining a plurality of lenses included in a contact lens system for treating presbyopia. Each of the plurality of lenses can be configured for optical correction and can have a power profile associated therewith. The plurality of lenses can be grouped based on optical correction. Each of the lenses in a particular group can have a different power profile. The exemplary method can include creating a fit guide based at least on the plurality of lenses and an add requirement, the fit guide indicating which of the plurality of lenses are to be worn on the dominant eye and the non-dominant eye. The fit guide can provide an effective add of interocular parallax.

[0005] Disclosed herein are systems and methods for contact lenses with anisometropia for presbyopia. An exemplary system may include multiple lens types for treating presbyopia. The lens system may include at least three lens types (labeled Lens A, Lens B, and Lens C). Each of the multiple lenses can be configured for optical correction and can have a power profile associated therewith. The multiple lenses can be grouped based on the optical correction. Each of the lenses of a particular type can have a different power profile. The following factors can be considered to change the optically corrected normalized power profile within the optical correction range for each of the lens labels to improve performance: [1] prescription (Rx), age, and accommodative dependence of eye spherical aberration), [2] Rx, age, and brightness dependence of entrance pupil diameter. The exemplary method may include fit guidance indicating which of the multiple lenses are to be worn on the dominant eye and the non-dominant eye. The fit guidance provides an effective add of interocular parallax.

[0006] Systems and / or methods for customizing a contact lens system with anisometropia for presbyopia are described herein. An exemplary method may include a step of determining (e.g., selecting) a fit (e.g., profile) associated with at least one user exhibiting presbyopia. The exemplary method may include a step of selecting (e.g., simulating) one or more visual performance manifolds based on the fit. Each of the visual performance manifolds may be generated based on lens design, eye model, and environmental conditions. The exemplary method may include a step of selecting a plurality of lenses included in a contact lens system for treating presbyopia or for changing the fit of lenses given subjective feedback based on one or more visual performance manifolds. Each of the plurality of lenses may be configured for optical correction and may have a power distribution associated therewith. The plurality of lenses may be grouped based on optical correction. Each of the lenses in a particular group may have a different power distribution. The exemplary method may include creating a fit guide based at least on a plurality of lenses and add requirements, the fit guide indicating which of the plurality of lenses will be worn on the dominant eye and the non-dominant eye. The fit guide may provide an effective add of interocular parallax.

[0007] The multiple lenses can be grouped based on optical correction so that the lens group is associated with a specific optical correction level or identification, such as between -20D and +20D. For example, a lens system can include multiple lenses grouped based on -6D optical correction. However, there may be a user's add demand, and the fit guidance can be used to select which lenses in the group / system should be worn on which eye of the user to obtain preferred performance. Each lens group can include at least three progressive continuous multifocal lenses. Each group of lenses can include three lenses. Each group of lenses can include four lenses. Each group of lenses can include five lenses. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0008] The following drawings illustrate various examples discussed in the present disclosure generally by way of example and not by way of limitation. In the drawings:

[0009] Figure 1 Exemplary power profiles comparing three lens systems are shown.

[0010] Figure 2 Example graphs comparing the visual performance of a lens system for various prescriptions (Rx) and an Add of 0.75D are shown.

[0011] Figure 3 Example graphs comparing the visual performance of a lens system for various prescriptions (Rx) and an Add of 1.00D are shown.

[0012] Figure 4Example graphs comparing the visual performance of a lens system for various prescriptions (Rx) and an Add of 1.25D are shown.

[0013] Figure 5 Example graphs comparing the visual performance of a lens system for various prescriptions (Rx) and an Add of 1.50D are shown.

[0014] Figure 6 Example graphs comparing the visual performance of a lens system for various prescriptions (Rx) and an Add of 1.75D are shown.

[0015] Figure 7 Example graphs comparing the visual performance of a lens system for various prescriptions (Rx) and an Add of 2.00D are shown.

[0016] Figure 8 Example graphs comparing the visual performance of a lens system for various prescriptions (Rx) and an Add of 2.25D are shown.

[0017] Fig. 9 Example graphs comparing the visual performance of a lens system for various prescriptions (Rx) and an Add of 2.50D are shown.

[0018] Fig.10 Exemplary power profiles and fit guidance for lens systems according to the present disclosure are shown.

[0019] Fig.11 Example graphs of the visual performance of a lens system according to the present disclosure for various prescriptions (Rx) and an Add of 0.75D are shown.

[0020] Fig.12 Example graphs of the visual performance of a lens system according to the present disclosure for various prescriptions (Rx) and an Add of 1.00D are shown.

[0021] Fig.13 Example graphs showing the visual performance of a lens system according to the present disclosure for various prescriptions (Rx) and an Add of 1.25D are shown.

[0022] Fig.14 Example graphs showing the visual performance of a lens system according to the present disclosure for various prescriptions (Rx) and an Add of 1.50D are shown.

[0023] Fig.15 Example graphs showing the visual performance of a lens system according to the present disclosure for various prescriptions (Rx) and an Add of 1.75D are shown.

[0024] Fig.16 Example graphs showing the visual performance of a lens system according to the present disclosure for various prescriptions (Rx) and an Add of 2.0D are shown.

[0025] Fig.17 Example graphs showing the visual performance of a lens system according to the present disclosure for various prescriptions (Rx) and an Add of 2.25D are shown.

[0026] Fig.18 Example graphs showing the visual performance of a lens system according to the present disclosure for various prescriptions (Rx) and an Add of 2.5D are shown.

[0027] Fig.19 Graphs of visual performance as a function of vergence (far vision) are shown to illustrate depth of focus (DOF) and effective Add (E.Add).

[0028] Fig. 20 Shows Figure 1 Comparison of lens systems for the dominant eye at low luminance (luminance = 2cd / m 2 ) at various Add optical powers.

[0029] Fig.21 Shows Figure 1 Comparison of lens systems for the non-dominant eye at low luminance (luminance = 2 cd / m 2 ) is a graph of the peak visual acuity position at various Add optical powers.

[0030] Fig. 22 Shows Figure 1 Comparison of lens systems for the dominant eye at low luminance (luminance = 2cd / m 2 ) is a depth of focus curve at various Add optical powers.

[0031] Fig.23 Shows Figure 1 Comparison of lens systems for the non-dominant eye at low luminance (luminance = 2 cd / m 2 ) is a depth of focus curve at various Add optical powers.

[0032] Fig.24 A graph showing the location of peak visual acuity for a lens system according to the present disclosure and in Fig.10 The figure shows the dominant eye at low brightness (brightness = 2 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers.

[0033] Fig.25 A graph showing the location of peak visual acuity for a lens system according to the present disclosure and in Fig.10 The figure shows the non-dominant eye at low brightness (brightness = 2 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers.

[0034] Fig.26 A depth of focus curve diagram of a lens system according to the present disclosure is shown, and Fig.10 The figure shows the dominant eye at low brightness (brightness = 2 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers.

[0035] Fig. 27 A depth of focus curve diagram of a lens system according to the present disclosure is shown, and Fig.10 The figure shows the non-dominant eye at low brightness (brightness = 2 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers.

[0036] Fig.28 Shows Figure 1 A comparison graph of the difference in peak visual acuity position between a comparative lens system and a lens system according to the present disclosure, and Fig.10 The figure shows the dominant eye at low brightness (brightness = 2 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers. The dashed line is a reference indicating zero difference, and the line below indicates the Figure 1 The more effective add of the prior art lens shown in , and the line above indicates that for example Fig.10 More effective add according to the lens of the present disclosure shown in .

[0037] Fig.29 Shows Figure 1 A comparison graph of the difference in peak visual acuity position between a comparative lens system and a lens system according to the present disclosure, and Fig.10 The figure shows the non-dominant eye at low brightness (brightness = 2 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers. The dashed line is a reference indicating zero difference, and the line below indicates the Figure 1 The more effective add of the comparative lens shown in , and the line above indicates that for example Fig.10 More effective add according to the lens of the present disclosure shown in .

[0038] Fig.30 Shows Figure 1 and a comparison graph of the difference in depth of focus between a comparative lens system and a lens system according to the present disclosure, and Fig.10 The figure shows the dominant eye at low brightness (brightness = 2 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers. The dashed line is a reference indicating zero difference, and the line below indicates the Figure 1 The larger DOF of the prior art lens shown in , and the line above indicates that for example Fig.10 More effective add according to the lens of the present disclosure shown in .

[0039] Fig.31 Shows Figure 1 and a comparison graph of the difference in depth of focus between a comparative lens system and a lens system according to the present disclosure, and Fig.10 The figure shows the non-dominant eye at low brightness (brightness = 2 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers. The dashed line is a reference indicating zero difference, and the line below indicates the Figure 1 The larger DOF of the prior art lens shown in , and the line above indicates that for example Fig.10 More effective add according to the lens of the present disclosure shown in .

[0040] Fig.32 Shows Figure 1 A comparison graph of the difference in peak visual acuity position between a comparative lens system and a lens system according to the present disclosure, and Fig.10 The figure shows the dominant eye at medium brightness (brightness = 20 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers. The dashed line is a reference indicating zero difference, and the line below indicates the Figure 1 The more effective add of the prior art lens shown in , and the line above indicates that for example Fig.10 More effective add according to the lens of the present disclosure shown in .

[0041] Fig.33 Shows Figure 1 A comparison graph of the difference in peak visual acuity position between a comparative lens system and a lens system according to the present disclosure, and Fig.10 The figure shows the non-dominant eye at medium brightness (brightness = 20 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers. The dashed line is a reference indicating zero difference, and the line below indicates the Figure 1 The more effective add of the prior art lens shown in , and the line above indicates that for example Fig.10 More effective add according to the lens of the present disclosure shown in .

[0042] Fig.34 Shows Figure 1 and a comparison graph of the difference in depth of focus between a comparative lens system and a lens system according to the present disclosure, and Fig.10 The figure shows the dominant eye at medium brightness (brightness = 20 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers. The dashed line is a reference indicating zero difference, and the line below indicates the Figure 1 The larger DOF of the prior art lens shown in , and the line above indicates that for example Fig.10 More effective add according to the lens of the present disclosure shown in .

[0043] Fig.35 Shows Figure 1 and a comparison graph of the difference in depth of focus between a comparative lens system and a lens system according to the present disclosure, and Fig.10 The figure shows the non-dominant eye at medium brightness (brightness = 20 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers. The dashed line is a reference indicating zero difference, and the line below indicates the Figure 1 The larger DOF of the prior art lens shown in , and the line above indicates that for example Fig.10 More effective add according to the lens of the present disclosure shown in .

[0044] Fig.36 Shows Figure 1 A comparison graph of the difference in peak visual acuity position between a comparative lens system and a lens system according to the present disclosure, and Fig.10 The figure shows the dominant eye at higher brightness (brightness = 400 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers. The dashed line is a reference indicating zero difference, and the line below indicates the Figure 1 The more effective add of the prior art lens shown in , and the line above indicates that for example Fig.10 More effective add according to the lens of the present disclosure shown in .

[0045] Fig.37 Shows Figure 1 A comparison graph of the difference in peak visual acuity position between a comparative lens system and a lens system according to the present disclosure, and Fig.10 The figure shows the non-dominant eye at higher brightness (brightness = 400 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers. The dashed line is a reference indicating zero difference, and the line below indicates the Figure 1 The more effective add of the prior art lens shown in , and the line above indicates that for example Fig.10 More effective add according to the lens of the present disclosure shown in .

[0046] Fig.38 Shows Figure 1 and a comparison graph of the difference in depth of focus between a comparative lens system and a lens system according to the present disclosure, and Fig.10 The figure shows the dominant eye at higher brightness (brightness = 400 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers. The dashed line is a reference indicating zero difference, and the line below indicates the Figure 1 The larger DOF of the prior art lens shown in , and the line above indicates that for example Fig.10 More effective add according to the lens of the present disclosure shown in .

[0047] Fig.39 Shows Figure 1 and a comparison graph of the difference in depth of focus between a comparative lens system and a lens system according to the present disclosure, and Fig.10 The figure shows the non-dominant eye at higher brightness (brightness = 400 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers. The dashed line is a reference indicating zero difference, and the line below indicates the Figure 1 The larger DOF of the prior art lens shown in , and the line above indicates that for example Fig.10 More effective add according to the lens of the present disclosure shown in . DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0048] Systems and / or methods for customizing a contact lens system with interocular parallax for presbyopia are described herein. An exemplary method may include the step of determining a fit associated with at least one user exhibiting presbyopia. Determining the fit may include optimizing a treatment plan for a particular user. Optimization may include using one or more visual performance manifolds, as shown and described herein.

[0049] Systems and / or methods for designing and implementing a contact lens system with interocular parallax for presbyopia are described herein. An exemplary system may include multiple lens types for treating presbyopia. The lens system may include at least three lens types (labeled Lens A, Lens B, and Lens C). The lens type may be changed by one or more of effective add or DOF. Each of the multiple lenses can be configured for optical correction and can have a power profile associated with it. The multiple lenses can be grouped based on optical correction. Each of these lenses of a particular type can have a different power profile. The following factors can be considered to change the optical correction normalized power profile within the optical correction range for each of these lens labels to improve performance: [1] prescription (Rx), age and accommodative dependence of eye spherical aberration), [2] brightness dependence of Rx, age and entrance pupil diameter.

[0050] The exemplary method may include selecting a fit associated with at least one user exhibiting presbyopia. The method may include simulating one or more visual performance manifolds based on a fit profile, wherein each of the visual performance manifolds is generated based on a lens design, an eye model, and environmental conditions. The method may include selecting a plurality of lenses included in a contact lens system for treating presbyopia or for changing the fit of a lens given an achieved visual performance based on the selected one or more visual performance manifolds, wherein each of the plurality of lenses is configured for optical correction and has a power profile associated therewith, wherein the plurality of lenses are grouped based on optical correction, and wherein each of the lenses in a particular group has a different power profile. The method may include creating a fit guide based at least on the plurality of lenses and an add requirement, the fit guide indicating which of the plurality of lenses are to be worn on a dominant eye and a non-dominant eye, wherein the fit guide provides an effective add of interocular parallax.

[0051] An exemplary method may include the step of determining a plurality of lens types included in a contact lens system for treating presbyopia. The lens system may include at least three lens types (identified as lens A, lens B, and lens C). However, other groupings and quantities of lens types may also be used. Each of the plurality of lenses may be configured for optical correction and may have a power distribution associated therewith. The plurality of lenses may be grouped based on optical correction. Each lens group may include at least three progressive continuous multifocal lenses. Each group of lenses may include three lenses. Each group of lenses may include four lenses. Each group of lenses may include five lenses. The power distribution may be between -20D and +20D. Determining a plurality of lens groups may include determining the visual performance manifold of one or more of the lenses in the plurality of lens groups.

[0052] Each of these lenses of a particular type may have a different power profile. However, the optically corrected normalized power profile within the optical correction range for each of these lens identifications may be varied to improve performance taking into account the following factors: the prescription (Rx) and the accommodation dependence of the eye's spherical aberration), and the brightness dependence of Rx, age, and entrance pupil diameter. In other words, the variation of the SKU normalized power profile (e.g., optical correction level) may be increased compared to the variation in conventional lenses or lens systems. The disclosed lens systems and methods allow for an excellent tradeoff in overall direct focus visual performance relative to conventional lenses and lens systems. As an illustrative example, this may be achieved by further increasing the monocular depth of focus (DOF) by utilizing the ability of the visual system to tolerate interocular refractive error. Additionally or alternatively, the disclosed lens designs employ more Add power, more SKU design variations, and adaptation / re-prescriptions optimized for visual performance manifolds compared to conventional lenses or lens systems.

[0053] A fit guide may be created and / or used. A fit guide may be created based at least on the plurality of lenses and the add requirement. The fit guide may be customized for one or more users. Various fit guides may be created and compared to provide optimal performance for one or more users. The fit guide may indicate which of the plurality of lenses are to be worn on the dominant eye and the non-dominant eye. An exemplary fit guide may include one or more of the following exemplary fit guides. Although an identification of a particular fit guide application is shown, this is for illustration and should not be limited thereto.

[0054] Initial lens selection:

[0055]

[0056] If you have a hyperopia complaint, you need to replace the lens :

[0057]

[0058] If near distance complaints require lens replacement :

[0059]

[0060] If the second farsightedness complaint requires lens replacement :

[0061]

[0062] If a second near complaint requires lens replacement :

[0063]

[0064] One or more fitness guidelines can provide an effective add of inter-ocular disparity. Fig.19 A graph showing visual performance as a function of vergence (distance vision) is shown. Effective add can be defined as the offset between zero vergence (distance vision) and the vergence of peak performance. The interocular disparity of effective add is the difference in effective add between the dominant and non-dominant eye.

[0065] DOF drops 3 lines from peak performance. Fig.19 The graphs in may illustratively describe each lens and the resulting disparity. Such disparity in the present disclosure may be different from 0, which is the disparity of the fit guidance for conventional lenses such as MF at low and medium add requirements. Other fit guidance may be used. Optimization may be based on the use of additional fit guidance for distance and / or near vision adjustment and based on patient reported performance. Although various techniques may be used, fit optimization may be performed by a physician based on feedback from the patient. Alternative fit guidance may be determined using the visual performance manifold to obtain an alternative that provides optimal visual performance when the patient presents certain complaints.

[0066] As a comparison, the table below shows the effective add of a conventional MF lens system and a lens system according to the present disclosure.

[0067] Valid Add Table

[0068]

[0069]

[0070] Figures 28 to 39 A comparison of effective add and DOF between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure is shown.

[0071] As another example, the fitness guidance may be based on one or more visual performance manifolds. Thus, the fitness guidance may be customized for a user or group of users based on comparative testing or optimized visual performance manifolds of one or more users.

[0072] As an illustrative example, the lens design optimization procedure may be based on visual performance. A measure of monocular visual performance is given by:

[0073]

[0074] , where MTF is the modulation transfer function of the lens + eye combination, NCSF is the neural contrast sensitivity function for a given pupil size and brightness, and ν is the spatial frequency.

[0075] Use the vector model to obtain binocular vision performance:

[0076]

[0077] The subscripts dom and non refer to the dominant eye and non-dominant eye, respectively, and α is a constant.

[0078] Optimization of visual performance can be achieved over a range of eye models (spanning the typical range of ages and add requirements for presbyopic people) by minimizing the following equation:

[0079]

[0080] where ψ ideal Performance is obtained using diffraction limited binocular vision.

[0081] Fig. 20 Shows Figure 1 Comparison of lens systems for the dominant eye at low luminance (luminance = 2cd / m 2 ) is a graph of the peak visual acuity position at various Add optical powers. Fig. 22 Shows Figure 1 Comparison of lens systems for the dominant eye at low luminance (luminance = 2cd / m 2 ) is a depth of focus curve at various Add optical powers. Fig.24 A graph showing the location of peak visual acuity for a lens system according to the present disclosure and in Fig.10 The figure shows the dominant eye at low brightness (brightness = 2 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers. Fig.26 A depth of focus curve diagram of a lens system according to the present disclosure is shown, and Fig.10 The figure shows the dominant eye at low brightness (brightness = 2 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers. In low light conditions, MF uses more effective add in the dominant eye, and the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses more DOF for medium and high add.

[0082] Fig.21 Shows Figure 1 Comparison of lens systems for the non-dominant eye at low luminance (luminance = 2 cd / m 2 ) is a graph of the peak visual acuity position at various Add optical powers. Fig.23 Shows Figure 1 Comparison of lens systems for the non-dominant eye at low luminance (luminance = 2 cd / m 2 ) is a depth of focus curve at various Add optical powers. Fig.25 A graph showing the location of peak visual acuity for a lens system according to the present disclosure and in Fig.10 The figure shows the non-dominant eye at low brightness (brightness = 2 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers. Fig. 27A depth of focus curve diagram of a lens system according to the present disclosure is shown, and Fig.10 The figure shows the non-dominant eye at low brightness (brightness = 2 cd / m 2 ) at various Add powers under low light conditions. Under low light conditions, MF uses more effective add in the non-dominant eye for low add, and the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses more effective add in medium and high add. The exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses more DOF in low and medium add, MF uses more DOF in high add myopia, and the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses more DOF in high add hyperopia.

[0083] Fig.28 A comparison of effective add at various Add powers between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure for the dominant eye under dim light conditions is shown. Fig.30 A comparison of DOF at various Add powers between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure for the dominant eye under dark light conditions is shown. Under dark light conditions, MF uses more effective add in the dominant eye, and the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses more DOF for medium and high add.

[0084] Fig.29 A comparison of effective add at various Add powers between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure for a non-dominant eye under dim light conditions is shown. Fig.31 A comparison of DOF at various Add powers between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure for a non-dominant eye under dark light conditions is shown. Under dark light conditions, an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses more effective Add in the non-dominant eye for medium and high Add. An exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses more DOF in low and medium Add, MF uses more DOF in high add myopia, and an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses more DOF in high add hyperopia.

[0085] Fig.32 A comparison of effective add at various Add powers between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure for the dominant eye under moderate light conditions is shown. Fig.34 A comparison of DOF at various Add powers between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure for the dominant eye under moderate light conditions is shown. Under moderate light conditions, the MF uses more effective add in the dominant eye.

[0086] Fig.33A comparison of effective add at various Add powers between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure for a non-dominant eye under moderate light conditions is shown. Fig.35 A comparison of DOF at various Add powers between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure for a non-dominant eye under medium light conditions is shown. Under medium light conditions, an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses more effective add in the non-dominant eye and more DOF in low and medium add.

[0087] Fig.36 A comparison of effective add at various Add powers between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure is shown for the dominant eye under bright light conditions. Fig.38 A comparison of DOF at various Add powers between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure for the dominant eye under bright light conditions is shown. Under bright light conditions, the MF uses more effective add in the dominant eye.

[0088] Fig.37 A comparison of the effective add at various Add powers between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure is shown for the non-dominant eye under bright light conditions. Fig.39 A comparison of DOF at various Add powers between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure for a non-dominant eye under bright light conditions is shown. Under bright light conditions, an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses more effective Add in the non-dominant eye in low and medium Add.

[0089] As shown, simulations indicate that the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure provides comparable or superior distance and near performance, and sacrifices a little intermediate performance in low light compared to MF. In general, the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses more effective add in the non-dominant eye and provides more DOF in the non-dominant eye, while MF uses more effective add and the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure provides more DOF in the dominant eye. However, in bright conditions with small pupils, the monocular DOF of the two designs is comparable. Although the increased DOF of the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure may be significant in low light conditions, the main difference between the two systems (from dim light to bright light) is due to the difference in effective add. Therefore, the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure improves direct focus monocular vision performance by optimally exploiting the visual system's tolerance for interocular parallax of effective add.

[0090] Example

[0091] Power distribution and visual performance manifold

[0092] For each design simulated, the power profile of each lens in the lens system is plotted and the visual performance manifold is presented for refractive errors of -9D, -6D, -3D, 2D, 4D, and 6D. The fit guidance for each design is presented in a tabular format. The fit guidance includes information about the lens design, fit for both the dominant eye and the non-dominant eye. The fit is the difference between the power label of the fitted lens and the subject's refraction. The visual performance is gray-coded in units of -10logMAR, ranging from -2 to 0.5. Values ​​above 0.5 are saturated and remain dark gray, while values ​​below -2 are saturated and displayed as white.

[0093] Multi-Focus (MF)

[0094]

[0095]

[0096] Exemplary lens systems of the present disclosure

[0097]

[0098] Fig.10 : Power distributions of three lens designs of an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure.

[0099] Fig.11 : Visual performance manifold of an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure for an add requirement of 0.75D.

[0100] Fig.12 : Visual performance manifold of the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure for 1D add requirements.

[0101] Fig.13 : Visual performance manifold of an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure for an add requirement of 1.25D.

[0102] Fig.14 : Visual performance manifold of the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure for an add requirement of 1.5D.

[0103] Fig.15 : Visual performance manifold of an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure for an add requirement of 1.75D.

[0104] Fig.16 : Visual performance manifold for 2D add requirements of the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure.

[0105] Fig.17 : Visual performance manifold of an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure for an add requirement of 2.25D.

[0106] Fig.18 : Visual performance manifold of the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure for 2.5D add requirement.

[0107] Although what is shown and described is believed to be the most practical and preferred embodiment, it is apparent that changes to the specific designs and methods described and shown will be apparent to those skilled in the art and can be used without departing from the spirit and scope of the present disclosure. The present disclosure is not limited to the specific constructions described and shown, but should be constructed to conform to all modifications that may fall within the scope of the appended claims.

Claims

1. A method for designing a contact lens system for presbyopia with an interocular refractive error, the method comprising the steps of: determining a plurality of lenses included in a contact lens system for treating presbyopia, wherein each lens of the plurality of lenses is configured for an optical correction and has an optical power profile associated therewith, wherein the plurality of lenses are grouped based on the optical correction, and wherein each of the lenses in a particular group has a different optical power profile; and A fit guide is created based at least on the plurality of lenses and the add requirement, the fit guide indicating which lenses of the plurality of lenses are to be worn on the dominant eye and the non-dominant eye, wherein the fit guide provides an interocular disparity for an effective add.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein each set of lenses comprises three lenses.

3. The method according to claim 1, wherein each set of lenses comprises four lenses.

4. The method according to claim 1, wherein each set of lenses comprises five lenses.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the power profile is between -20D and +20D.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein determining a plurality of lenses comprises determining a visual performance manifold for one or more of the lenses.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein the fitness guidance comprises one or more of the following:

8. A method for customizing a contact lens system for presbyopia having an interocular refractive error, the method comprising the steps of: determining a fit associated with at least one user exhibiting presbyopia; simulating one or more visual performance manifolds based on the fit, wherein each of the visual performance manifolds is generated based on a lens design, an eye model, and environmental conditions; selecting, based on the simulated one or more visual performance manifolds, a plurality of lenses for inclusion in a contact lens system for treating presbyopia, wherein each lens of the plurality of lenses is configured for an optical correction and has a power profile associated therewith, wherein the plurality of lenses are grouped based on the optical correction, and wherein each of the lenses in a particular group has a different power profile; and A fit guide is created based at least on the plurality of lenses and the add requirement, the fit guide indicating which lenses of the plurality of lenses are to be worn on the dominant eye and the non-dominant eye, wherein the fit guide provides an interocular disparity for an effective add.

9. The method according to claim 8, wherein each set of lenses comprises three lenses.

10. The method of claim 8, wherein each set of lenses comprises four lenses.

11. The method of claim 8, wherein each set of lenses comprises five lenses.

12. The method of claim 8, wherein the optical power is between -20D and +20D.

13. The method of claim 8, wherein determining a suitability profile comprises optimizing a treatment plan for a particular user. The method of claim 13 , wherein the optimizing comprises using one or more visual performance manifolds.

15. The method of claim 8, wherein the fitness guidance comprises one or more of the following:

Images