ALIGNMENT OF SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE REFRACTIONS

Description

[0001] The present invention relates to a series of sets comprising spectacle lenses with associated specifications.

[0002] A widely used method for determining refraction (comprising at least one refractive component) is the so-called subjective refraction determination, which has become generally accepted among opticians. In subjective refraction determination, different refractive lenses are traditionally placed in front of the wearer of a pair of spectacle lenses. The wearer of the spectacle lenses informs the refractionist of any improvement or deterioration in the visual impression when the optical properties of the refractive lens change. Subjective refraction therefore requires the examinee to provide information about their visual impression and can also consider the influence of other variables on the visual impression.

[0003] The subjective refraction determination can be based, for example, on values ​​from an objective refraction determination or on the values ​​of a pair of glasses already worn. However, the accuracy of the subjective refraction determination critically depends on the skill of the refractionist, such as an optician and / or ophthalmologist, who performs the subjective refraction determination. The subjective refraction determination also critically depends on the person being examined, in particular on the person being examined's ability to assess and / or articulate the sharpness of visual impressions.

[0004] Another method for determining refraction is so-called objective refraction: Objective refraction is performed using an instrumental arrangement and is determined by the refractive properties and geometry of the eyeball. Objective refraction can be performed using various devices, such as refractometers, aberrometers, wavefront scanners, etc.

[0005] However, the values ​​determined by objective refraction for a spectacle wearer often differ significantly from those determined by subjective refraction. This makes it significantly more difficult to determine suitable target values ​​for the spectacle lens that are intended to correct the wearer's refractive error.

[0006] Patent application WO 2009 / 007136 A1 describes a method for determining target values ​​for a spectacle lens, in which at least a subset of the subjective refraction data is adapted to the objective refraction data based on a comparison of the subjective and objective data. In particular, the subset of the subjective refraction data is adapted to the objective refraction data if the comparison result satisfies at least one predetermined comparison condition; otherwise, the subset of the subjective refraction data is retained.

[0007] Patent application US 2014 / 368795 A1 describes a method for determining a user's refraction values. This method first performs an objective measurement of the astigmatism values ​​(cylinder and axis) using an aberrometer. Subsequently, a subjective refraction determination is performed, with the astigmatism values ​​determined with the aberrometer serving as the initial values ​​for the subjective refraction. The final refraction values ​​are composed of the sphere determined by subjective refraction and the astigmatism values ​​(cylinder and axis) determined by objective refraction.

[0008] Patent application DE 10 2011 089704 A1 describes a readable marking for a spectacle lens, spectacle lens blank, or spectacle lens semi-finished product. Patent application US 2005 / 073650 A1 describes a method and device for marking a spectacle lens.

[0009] It is an object of the present invention to improve the determination of a spectacle wearer's refractive error. This object is achieved by a series of sets comprising spectacle lenses with associated specifications according to independent claim 1. Preferred embodiments or forms are the subject of the dependent claims.

[0010] The present invention is based on the finding that different measurements or measuring methods and / or measuring devices provide fundamentally different refraction values.

[0011] The invention proposes to take into account measurement inaccuracies or measurement deviations of the different measurements when calculating the visual impairment of a spectacle wearer.

[0012] According to the invention, a series of sets comprising ophthalmic lenses with associated specifications is provided. The series comprises: a first spectacle lens A for correcting a first visual impairment of an eye of a spectacle wearer and a specification of the first visual impairment, wherein the spectacle lens A has a first power P_A at a reference point of the spectacle lens, the first visual impairment is characterized by at least one first measured value P_A1 obtained by means of a measuring device of the first type for measuring the visual impairment and consisting of several components, and at least one second measured value P_A2 obtained by means of a measuring device of the second type for measuring the visual impairment and consisting of several components, wherein optionally the first measured value P_A1 and the second measured value P_A2 differ in at least one component X;a second spectacle lens B for correcting a second visual impairment of an eye of a spectacle wearer and a specification of the second visual impairment, wherein the spectacle lens B has a second power P_B at a reference point designated identically to the first spectacle lens, wherein the second visual impairment is characterized by at least one first measured value P_B1 obtained by means of the measuring device of the first type and consisting of several components, and at least one second measured value P_B2 obtained by means of the measuring device of the second type and consisting of several components, wherein optionally the first measured value P_B1 and the second measured value P_B2 differ in at least one component X;at least one third spectacle lens C for correcting a third visual impairment of an eye of a spectacle wearer and a specification of the third visual impairment, wherein the spectacle lens C has a third power P_C at a reference point designated identically to the first spectacle lens, and wherein the third visual impairment is characterized by at least one first measured value P_C1 obtained by means of the measuring device of the first type and consisting of several components, and at least one second measured value P_C2 obtained by means of the measuring device of the second type and consisting of several components, wherein optionally the first measured value P_C1 and the second measured value P_C2 differ in at least one component X; ; where: the first measured values ​​P_A1, P_B1 and P_C1 determined with the measuring device of the first type are identical in terms of components, the components X of the second measured values ​​P_A2, P_B2 and P_C2 determined with the second measuring devices of the second type all differ in pairs, the component X of the first power P_A and the component X of the first measured value P_A1 are essentially identical, and the following relationships apply to the components X of the power of the i-th spectacle lens present at the reference point, X_i, where i = A, B or C, and to the components X of the second measured values ​​of the i-th visual impairment, X_i2: X _ B − X _ A / X _ B 2 − X _ A 2 ungleich X _ C − X _ A / X _ C 2 − X _ A 2 ; abs X_B 2 − X_A 2 < abs X_C 2 − X_A 2 ; and signum X_B 2 − X_A 2 = signum X_C 2 − X_A 2 , and wherein lenses A, B and C are single-vision lenses or progressive lenses having the same additions.

[0013] The specification may be stored on a suitable storage medium, e.g., on paper or on an electronic or optical storage medium. For example, the specification may be printed on a lens bag. The specification may also be present in or on the lens itself, e.g., by being engraved in or on the lens.

[0014] An exemplary computer-implemented or computer-aided method for determining the refractive error of an eye of a spectacle wearer comprises: Providing measured values ​​from a first and a second measurement of the refractive error of the eye of the spectacle wearer; calculating an estimated value for the refractive error of the eye of the spectacle wearer based on the measured values ​​from the first and second measurements, wherein measurement inaccuracies or measurement deviations of the first and second measurements of the refractive error are taken into account in the calculation of the estimated value of the refractive error, or measurement inaccuracies or measurement deviations of the first measurement and the second measurement of the refractive error are incorporated into the calculation of the estimated value of the refractive error.

[0015] "Providing" in the sense of the present invention includes "extracting from a database, a table or other data carrier", "entering into a user interface, such as a graphical user interface", "transmitting", "measuring" or "estimating".

[0016] The first and second measurements can be carried out using measuring devices for measuring different types of refractive errors, e.g. using different devices, subjective / objective, etc.

[0017] The measured values ​​can include measured values ​​of at least one component, preferably several components. In other words, the measured values ​​can be in vector form with several components. The components can, for example, the components of a polar representation (sphere, cylinder and axis), the components of a curvature matrix representation, the components of a power vector representation (M, J0 and J45), the components of a Harris vector representation, the components of a Zernike polynomial decomposition (Zernike coefficients), or the component of another suitable characterization of the refractive error of a spectacle wearer.

[0018] The measurement inaccuracies or measurement deviations of the first and second measurements can be determined in advance (e.g., according to one of the methods described below) and stored in a suitable form (e.g., as a table, in a file, in a database, as a mathematical model, as a function, etc.). The method for determining the refractive error can accordingly comprise providing data or information about the measurement inaccuracies or measurement deviations of the first and second refractive error measurements. Furthermore, the method can comprise providing data about the type of measurement, the device used, and individual data of the wearer (such as age, preferences, visual habits, use of the lens, parameters of the wearer's position, etc.).

[0019] An exemplary method for determining the target power of a spectacle lens to correct a wearer’s vision defect includes: Determining the visual impairment of one eye of the spectacle wearer according to the method according to the first aspect; and defining the target effect based on the determined visual impairment, such that the target effect at least partially, preferably substantially completely, corrects the determined visual impairment in at least one reference point.

[0020] The reference point can be the distance reference point, the prism reference point, the centering point or the centering cross, the near reference point or any other suitable reference point.

[0021] An exemplary method for manufacturing a spectacle lens includes: Determining the visual impairment of one eye of the spectacle wearer according to the method according to the second aspect; establishing the target power in at least one reference point of the spectacle lens based on the determined visual impairment, such that the target power of the spectacle lens at least partially, preferably substantially completely, corrects the determined visual impairment in the at least one reference point; and manufacturing the spectacle lens such that the target power is achieved in the at least one reference point of the spectacle lens, preferably in a predetermined wearing position of the spectacle lens.

[0022] An example procedure for ordering eyeglass lenses includes: Providing measured values ​​from a first measurement and a second measurement of the refractive error of the eye of the spectacle wearer; calculating an estimated value for the refractive error of the eye of the spectacle wearer based on the measured values ​​from the first measurement and the second measurement, wherein measurement inaccuracies or measurement deviations of the first measurement and the second measurement of the refractive error are taken into account when calculating the estimated value of the refractive error.

[0023] Furthermore, a computer program product is described which, when loaded into the memory of a computer and executed on a computer, causes the computer to perform a method according to one of the above examples.

[0024] An exemplary device for determining the visual impairment of an eye of a spectacle wearer comprises a computing device, in particular a computer or computer system, which is designed to carry out the method according to one of the above examples.

[0025] An exemplary device for producing a spectacle lens comprises: a device for determining the visual impairment of an eye of a spectacle wearer according to the sixth aspect; a device for determining the desired power at a reference point of the spectacle lens based on the determined visual impairment, such that the desired power of the spectacle lens at least partially, preferably substantially completely, corrects the determined visual impairment at the at least one reference point; and a manufacturing device for manufacturing the spectacle lens, such that the desired power is achieved at at least one predetermined reference point of the spectacle lens, preferably in a predetermined wearing position of the spectacle lens.

[0026] An exemplary device for ordering spectacle lenses is configured to carry out the method for ordering spectacle lenses. In particular, the device for ordering spectacle lenses comprises: a device for providing measured values ​​from a first measurement and a second measurement of the visual impairment of the eye of the spectacle wearer, and a computing device configured to calculate an estimated value for the visual impairment of the eye of the spectacle wearer based on the measured values ​​from the first measurement and the second measurement, wherein measurement inaccuracies or measurement deviations of the first measurement and the second measurement of the visual impairment are incorporated into the calculation of the estimated value of the visual impairment. The estimated value can be determined using one of the methods described above.

[0027] The above-mentioned devices for providing, determining, setting, or calculating data and / or measured values ​​can be implemented by suitably configured or programmed data processing devices (in particular, specialized hardware modules, computers, or computer systems) with corresponding computing units, electronic interfaces, memories, and data transmission units. The devices can further comprise at least one, preferably interactive, graphical user interface (GUI) that allows a user to enter and / or modify data.

[0028] The manufacturing device can, for example, comprise at least one CNC-controlled machine for directly machining a blank according to the determined optimization specifications. Alternatively, the spectacle lens can be manufactured using a casting process. The finished spectacle lens preferably has a simple spherical or rotationally symmetrical aspherical surface and a surface calculated or optimized according to the method according to the invention and according to individual parameters of the spectacle wearer. The simple spherical or rotationally symmetrical aspherical surface is preferably the front surface (i.e., the object-side surface) of the spectacle lens. Of course, it is possible, however, to arrange the optimized surface as the front surface of the spectacle lens. Both surfaces of the spectacle lens can also be optimized.

[0029] A spectacle lens manufactured according to the manufacturing method can be used in a predetermined average or ideal position of use of the spectacle lens in front of the eyes of a specific spectacle wearer to correct a visual impairment of the spectacle wearer, wherein the visual impairment is characterized by a measured value determined by means of a first measuring device and a measured value determined by means of a second measuring device.

[0030] The series according to the above aspect, as well as the methods, devices, and computer program products described above, can reduce the likelihood of complaints regarding ophthalmic lenses whose calculations use both subjective and objective refraction. This applies specifically to power ranges where the objective refraction devices systematically measure differently than the subjective refraction.

[0031] Measurement inaccuracies may include a statistical and / or systematic deviation between the measured values ​​from the first measurement and the measured values ​​from the second measurement. For example, if the systematic or statistical deviation between the first and second measurements is not taken into account, significant deviations may occur in the refraction values ​​determined using state-of-the-art technology, e.g., averaged values, from the optimal values ​​for the wearer.

[0032] The measurement inaccuracies or deviations can include both statistical and systematic deviations between the first measurement and the second measurement. The systematic and statistical deviations can be considered in a single process step or in several process steps sequentially in any order.

[0033] A first estimate of the refractive error of the wearer's eye can be calculated based on the first and second measurements. When calculating the first estimate of the refractive error, systematic deviations between the measured values ​​from the first measurement and the second refractive error measurement are taken into account. In a second step, a second estimate of the refractive error is determined based on the first estimate and the statistical measurement inaccuracies or deviations of the first and second measurements. This second estimate is then output as the final estimate or is further adjusted.

[0034] Determining the first estimated value may comprise determining a correction term for the measured values ​​from the first and / or the second measurement and correcting or adjusting the measured values ​​of the first or the second measurement using the correction term (e.g. by adding the respective measured values ​​to the correction term).

[0035] The first estimate can be further corrected to account for statistical deviations between the first and second measurements. This can be done, for example, by combining the possibly corrected values ​​from the first and second measurements, as described in detail below.

[0036] The combination of the measured values ​​from the first and second measurements and the correction or adjustment of the measured values ​​from the first and second measurements can also be carried out in reverse order.

[0037] According to a preferred example, the first measurement of the refractive error of the eye is an objective refraction and / or the second measurement of the refractive error of the eye is a subjective refraction. The measured values ​​accordingly comprise values ​​of at least one component or refraction component. This at least one component of the measured values ​​can be a component of a wavefront representation of the refractive error, its linear combination, or quantities derived therefrom. The at least one component can, for example: the component of a polar representation (sphere, cylinder and axis), the component of a curvature matrix representation, the component of a power vector representation (M, J0 and J45), the component of a Harris vector representation, the component of a Zernike polynomial decomposition (Zernike coefficient), or the component of another suitable characterization of the wearer's refractive error.

[0038] The method for determining the refractive error of an eye of a spectacle wearer may further comprise providing data on the measurement accuracies or measurement deviations of the first and second refractive error measurements. The data may be stored electronically (e.g., stored in a database) or on a form (e.g., on paper). The data may be in tabular form (e.g., as a "look-up table" (LUT)) or specified as a mathematical model, e.g., as a parametric function with specified parameters.

[0039] The method for determining the refractive error of an eye of a spectacle wearer can comprise determining the measurement inaccuracies or measurement deviations of the first and second measurements using statistical analysis, such as a statistical analysis of the data or measured values ​​(reference measured values) contained in a data set (reference data set) from previous measurements (e.g., previous first and second measurements or measurements with measuring devices of the first and second type) of various spectacle wearers. The data set (reference data set) can further comprise other measurements based on which the measurement inaccuracies or measurement deviations of the first and second measurements are determined.

[0040] The raw measured values ​​can be filtered before analysis, e.g. based on the following criteria: the absolute value of a difference between an addition and a reciprocal object distance in (subjective) near refraction measurement (with a positive sign convention) is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, optionally equal to or less than 0 D, 0.25 D or 0.5 D; the visual acuity of the respective spectacle wearer (whose refraction values ​​are contained in the data set) is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, optionally equal to or greater than 1.25 or 1.5 or 1.6; the resolution of the refractive lenses used in the subjective refraction of a spectacle wearer is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value, optionally equal to or greater than 0.5 D or 0.25 D or 0.125 D.

[0041] Other criteria are also possible, such as density of data in a certain measurement interval.

[0042] Determining the measurement inaccuracies or deviations of the first and second measurements may, for example, include the following steps: Defining a model for the measured values ​​of the second measurement as a sum of a predicted measured value and a random variable, wherein the predicted measured value is modeled as a parametric function of the measured value of the first measurement and optionally a portion of the measured value of the second measurement; determining the parameters of the parametric function by fitting the model to the reference measurements contained in the data set while maximizing the probability distribution of the random variables in the parameter space of the model; determining a systematic deviation of the first measurement from the second measurement based on the predicted measurement.

[0043] The model can be described, for example, by the following equation or system of equations: P ˜ 2 = P pred P ˜ 1 , … + ε , where: P 1 denotes the measured value of the first measurement (in vector form); P 2 denotes the measured value of the second measurement (in vector form); P pred denotes the predicted measured value (in vector form); and ε the random variable (in vector form).

[0044] The above equation or system of equations must be considered separately for each measured value in the reference data set, i.e., it applies to each measurement "i." Therefore, for the i-th measurement, the following applies: P i ˜ 2 = P pred P i ˜ 1 , … + ε i

[0045] Each measurement can therefore be assigned a random variable ε i< (which can be a vector quantity). All random variables ε i< come from the same distribution or refer to the same distribution.

[0046] Optionally, if the parametric function is a function of the measured value of the first measurement and a portion of the measured value of the second measurement, the component of the second measurement being modeled should preferably not be included in the parametric function. Otherwise, there is a trivial solution: the random variable is always 0, and the parametric function is identical to the component of the second measurement being modeled.

[0047] The predicted measurement can be modeled by any parametric function, e.g., a polynomial function. The predicted measurement can, for example, be a predicted refraction, which can be modeled by one of the following parametric functions: Model 1: M pred M ˜ obj J 0 ˜ obj J 45 ˜ obj = ∑ i = 0 4 a M , i M M ˜ obj i + a J 0 , 1 M J 0 ˜ obj + a J 45 , 1 M J 45 ˜ obj J 0 pred M ˜ obj J 0 ˜ obj J 45 ˜ obj = a M , 1 J 0 M ˜ obj + ∑ i = 0 4 a J 0 , i J 0 J 0 ˜ obj i + a J 45 , 1 M J 45 ˜ obj J 45 pred M ˜ obj J 0 ˜ obj J 45 ˜ obj = a M , 1 J 45 M ˜ obj + a J 0 , 1 J 45 J 45 ˜ obj + ∑ i = 0 4 a J 45 , i J 45 J 45 ˜ obj i or model 2: M pred M ˜ obj J 0 ˜ obj J 45 ˜ obj J 0 ˜ sub J 45 ˜ sub = ∑ i = 0 4 a M , i M M ˜ obj i + a J 0 , 1 M J 0 ˜ obj + a J 45 , 1 M J 45 ˜ obj + b J 0 , 1 M J 0 ˜ sub + b J 45 , 1 M J 45 ˜ sub J 0 pred M ˜ obj J 0 ˜ obj J 45 ˜ obj J 0 ˜ sub J 45 ˜ sub = a M , 1 J 0 M ˜ obj + ∑ i = 0 4 a J 0 , 1 J 0 J 0 ˜ obj i + a J 45 , 1 J 0 J 45 ˜ obj + b M , 1 J 0 M ˜ sub + b J 45 , 1 J 0 J 45 ˜ sub J 45 pred M ˜ obj J 0 ˜ obj J 45 ˜ obj J 0 ˜ sub J 45 ˜ sub = a M , 1 J 45 M ˜ obj + a J 0 , 1 J 45 J 45 ˜ obj + ∑ i = 0 4 a J 45 , i J 45 J 45 ˜ obj i + b M , 1 J 45 M ˜ sub + b J 0 , 1 J 45 J 0 ˜ sub where: ( M pred , J 0 pred , J 45 pred) denotes the power vector of the predicted refraction; ( M̃ Objl , J 0 ˜ obj , J 45 ˜ obj ) denotes the power vector of the measured values ​​from the objective refraction; ( M sub , J 0 ˜ sub , J 45 ˜ sub ) denotes the power vector of the measured values ​​from the subjective refraction; a X , i Y denote the parameters of the respective parametric function, Y represents a power vector component of the power vector of the predicted refraction; X represents a power vector component of the power vector of the measured objective refraction.

[0048] The determined parameters a X , i Y can be stored in a suitable form (e.g. as a LUT) and taken into account when calculating the estimated value for the refractive error.

[0049] Based on the predicted measurement according to the model and the provided subjective and objective measured values, the systematic deviation of the first measurement from the second measurement and corresponding correction terms can be determined. The objective measured value, the subjective measured value, or both measured values ​​can be corrected (e.g., by adding the respective measured value to the determined correction term).

[0050] The statistical measurement errors or measurement inaccuracies can be minimized by combining the measured values ​​from the first measurement and the second measurement (e.g. the subjective and the objective refraction values). It has proven particularly advantageous to calculate the estimated value of the refractive error of the eye by forming a weighted average of the measured values ​​from the first and the second measurement, whereby the first measurement or the components of the measured value from the first measurement are weighted with first weights and the second measurement or the components of the measured value from the second measurement are weighted with second weights and the sum of the first and the second weight for the respective component is equal to 1. Since the measured values ​​are essentially vector quantities (i.e. quantities with multiple components), the individual components (e.g. power vector components) are generally weighted with different weights.If the respective measured value has only one component (e.g. the spherical equivalent), the component from the first measurement is weighted with a first weight and the component from the second measurement with a second weight.

[0051] Preferably, between the first and second measurements, the measurement with the lower measurement inaccuracy is weighted with higher weights. Preferably, the measured values ​​from the first measurement and / or the measured values ​​from the second measurement are corrected or modified beforehand to reduce the statistical deviations between the first and second measurements.

[0052] The weights are preferably dependent on the measured values ​​of the refractive error. The measured values ​​can, for example, include an addition and / or a spherical equivalent, and the weights can depend on the addition and / or the difference between the measured value of the spherical equivalent from the first measurement and the measured value of the spherical equivalent from the second measurement. A novel weighting method is described below to minimize the static measurement inaccuracies or deviations between an objective and a subjective measurement of the refractive error.

[0053] For example, if the addition is equal to or higher than a predetermined value (e.g. 1.75 D or 2.0 D or 2.25 D or 2.5 D) or equivalently the accommodation power is equal to or lower than a predetermined value (e.g. 0.75 D or 0.5 D or 0.25 D or 0 D), and if the difference Δ Mbetween the objective spherical equivalent and the subjective spherical equivalent is not large (e.g. in the interval -0.75 D < Δ M < +0.75 D or -0.5 D < Δ M < +0.5 D) the weight of the subjective spherical equivalent is between 0.3 and 0.7.

[0054] If the addition is equal to or higher than a predetermined value (e.g. 1.75 D or 2.0 D or 2.25 D or 2.5 D) or equivalently the accommodation power is equal to or lower than a predetermined value (e.g. 0.75 D or 0.5 D or 0.25 D or 0 D), and if the absolute value of the difference between the objective spherical equivalent and the subjective spherical equivalent is large (e.g. greater than 1.5 D or 1.0 D or 0.5 D), the weight of the subjective spherical equivalent is greater than or equal to 0.8 or 0.9 or 0.95 or 0.99. The value can even be 1.

[0055] If the addition is equal to or lower than a predetermined value (e.g. equal to or lower than 1.5 D or 1.25 D or 1.0 D or 0.75 D or 0.5 D) or equivalently the accommodation power is equal to or higher than a predetermined value (e.g. equal to or higher than 1.0 D or 1.25 D or 1.5 D or 1.75 D or 2.0 D), and if the difference Δ M If the difference between the objective spherical equivalent and the subjective spherical equivalent is negative and less than a predetermined value (e.g., less than -0.5 D or -1.0 D or -1.5 D), the weight of the objective spherical equivalent is small, e.g., 0.5 or 0.4 or 0.3 or 0.2 or 0.1 or 0.05 or 0.01. The value can even be 0.

[0056] If the addition is lower than a predetermined value and the difference Δ M between the objective spherical equivalent and the subjective spherical equivalent is not large (e.g. in the interval -0.75 D < ΔM < +0.75 D or -0.5 D < Δ M < +0.5 D), the subjective and objective spherical equivalents are weighted similarly to those in the case of (relatively) high presbyopia. The weight of the subjective spherical equivalent can, for example, be between 0.3 and 0.7 or between 0.4 and 0.6.

[0057] The weights may also depend on other components of the refraction (refraction components), such as the components J0 and J45 in the power vector representation.

[0058] The refractive error measurements may further include at least one astigmatic component (e.g., the power vector components J0 and J45), whereby the subjective and objective astigmatic components may be weighted with constant weights. For example, the weight for the subjective astigmatic component may be 0.7 and the weight for the corresponding objective astigmatic component 0.3. Other values ​​are also possible and may express that both measurements have the same statistical inaccuracy (both weights 0.5) or that the subjectively determined astigmatic components have a lower statistical inaccuracy (e.g., objective weight: 0.7, subjective weight: 0.3).

[0059] Preferably, the measurement inaccuracies or deviations of the first and second measurements are determined or quantified for the same object distance, such as an object distance of infinity. Furthermore, the measurement inaccuracies or deviations are preferably determined or quantified at a distance from the eye that is identical for all data. The method may accordingly comprise converting raw objective and / or subjective refraction values ​​to a common distance from the eye or to a common plane or surface, where the distance may be, for example, the distance from the corneal vertex or from the entrance pupil of the eye.

[0060] Further preferably, the measurement inaccuracies or measurement deviations of the first and second measurements are determined or quantified separately for different devices for determining objective refraction values.

[0061] The above method for determining the visual impairment of an eye of a spectacle wearer can be carried out using an appropriately designed device. The device can comprise a computing or data processing device (in particular a computer or computer system) programmed to carry out the method and in particular to calculate the estimated value. Furthermore, the device can have suitable interfaces that enable the transmission, input, or readout of measured values ​​from a first and a second measurement. The device can also comprise a memory unit that stores the measured values ​​from the first and second measurements and, if applicable, previously determined measurement inaccuracies or deviations (e.g., in tabular form or in the form of a model).

[0062] The device for determining the visual impairment of an eye of a spectacle wearer can further comprise at least one measuring device of a first type for performing the first measurement, in particular a measuring device for performing an objective refraction measurement. Preferably, the computing device is configured, as described above, to at least partially compensate for the systematic deviations of the measured values ​​obtained with the measuring device for performing an objective refraction measurement (objective measuring device) from the measured values ​​obtained with a subjective measurement.

[0063] The device may further comprise a second measuring device of a second type for performing the second measurement, in particular a measuring device for performing a subjective refraction measurement.

[0064] The method for determining the visual impairment of a spectacle wearer can be part of a method for ordering and / or manufacturing a spectacle lens. Accordingly, the device for determining the visual impairment of a spectacle wearer can be part of a device for ordering and / or manufacturing a spectacle lens. The method for ordering and / or manufacturing a spectacle lens can further comprise defining a target power of the spectacle lens based on the determined visual impairment. The target power of the spectacle lens is defined such that the determined visual impairment is at least partially, preferably substantially, corrected in at least one reference point of the spectacle lens (such as the distance reference point or the prism reference point or the centering cross and optionally the near reference point).The method may further comprise calculating and manufacturing the spectacle lens, wherein the spectacle lens is calculated and manufactured such that its power in the at least one reference point is substantially equal to the desired power.

[0065] Preferably, the calculation is performed in a wearer's individually predetermined or average wearing position. The wearing position can be characterized by parameters such as corneal vertex distance, ocular center of rotation distance, forward tilt, frame lens angle, interpupillary distance, pupil diameter, etc. Preferred examples

[0066] As described above, the invention proposes a series of sets of spectacle lenses with associated specifications for the refractive error. The specification of the refractive error to be corrected by a particular spectacle lens can thus be considered a component of the spectacle lens.

[0067] A spectacle lens of the series has a first power P_A at a reference point of the lens. The reference point can be, for example, the distance reference point, the prism reference point, the centering cross, the near reference point, or another suitable reference point. As described above, the power can have multiple components, such as a spherical and / or astigmatic component.

[0068] The refractive error (which may be part of the lens specification) can be characterized by a first measured value P_A1 and a second measured value P_A2. These measured values ​​may include multiple components (such as a spherical or astigmatic component, etc.). The components of the refractive error measured values ​​generally correspond to the components of the power at the lens's reference point.

[0069] The first measured value P_A1 and the second measured value P_A2 are obtained using different measurements. In particular, the first measured value P_A1 is obtained using a measuring device of the first type for measuring the visual impairment, and the second measured value P_A2 is obtained using a measuring device of the second type for measuring the visual impairment. Typically, the first measured value P_A1 and the second measured value P_A2 differ in at least one component X.

[0070] The component X of the power P_A present at the reference point of the spectacle lens is closer to the component X of the measured value among the measured values ​​P_A1 or P_A2 that is obtained by the measuring device with the lower inaccuracy in measuring component X. As explained above, the components of the measured values ​​P_A1 and P_A2 can be components of a wavefront representation of the refractive error, a linear combination thereof, or quantities derived therefrom. Preferably, the component X of the power P_A present at the reference point of the first spectacle lens and the component X of the first measured value of the first eye P_A1 are essentially identical.

[0071] The lens can be a single-vision lens (with or without astigmatic power) or a progressive lens.

[0072] The above lenses form a series of lenses with different powers at at least one reference point, whereby the lenses correct different refractive errors. Such a series comprises at least three lenses with different powers at the reference point: a first spectacle lens A for correcting a first refractive error, a second spectacle lens B for correcting a second refractive error; and a third spectacle lens C for correcting a third refractive error.

[0073] The first, second, and third refractive errors are each characterized by two different measured values, wherein the two measured values ​​are obtained using different measuring devices for measuring the refractive error. The measuring device or devices of the first type (first measuring device(s)) can be a measuring device or devices for measuring the subjective refraction. The measuring device or devices of the second type (second measuring device(s)) can be a measuring device or devices for measuring the objective refraction. Each measured value comprises several components (e.g., a spherical, an astigmatic component, etc.). The measured values ​​obtained with the first measuring device(s) differ from the measured values ​​obtained with the second measuring device(s) in at least one component.

[0074] At the at least one reference point, spectacle lens A has a first power P_A, spectacle lens B has a second power P_B, and spectacle lens C has a third power P_C. The first refractive error is characterized by a first measured value P_A1 and a second measured value P_A2. The second refractive error is characterized by a first measured value P_B1 and a second measured value P_B2. The third refractive error is characterized by a first measured value P_C1 and a second measured value P_C2.

[0075] The first reference point can be the distance reference point, the prism reference point, the centration point or cross, the near reference point, or another suitable reference point. The first reference point can be marked or identified by a permanent or non-permanent marking in or on the lens.

[0076] The first measured values ​​P_A1, P_B1, and P_C1 determined with the measuring device(s) of the first type are identical in their components. The components X of the second measured values ​​P_A2, P_B2, and P_C2 determined with the measuring device(s) of the second type are all pairwise distinct. The component X of the first power P_A and the component X of the first measured value P_A1 are almost identical. The following relationships preferably apply to the components X of the power of the i-th spectacle lens present at the reference point, X_i, where i = A, B, or C, and to the components X of the second measured values ​​of the i-th eye, X_i2: X_B − X_A / X_B 2 − X_A 2 ungleich X_C − X_A / X_C 2 − X_A 2 ; abs X_B 2 − X_A 2 < abs X_C 2 − X_A 2 ; and signum X_B 2 − X_A 2 = signum X_C 2 − X_A 2 , where the function abs(x) gives the absolute value of the argument x and the function signum(x) is the sign function that assigns the sign to the argument x.

[0077] The lenses can be single-vision lenses (Add = 0 Dpt) or progressive lenses (Add ≠ 0 Dpt), whereby all progressive lenses in the series have the same additions.

[0078] Preferably, for single-vision lenses and progressive lenses with the same addition Add and an addition Add <= 1.5, optionally 1.25 D, the following relationships apply for the components X of the power of the i-th lens present at the reference point, X_i, and for the components X of the second measured values ​​of the i-th eyes, X_i2: X_B − X_A / X_B 2 − X_A 2 < X_C − X_A / X_C 2 − X_A 2 falls X_B 2 − X_A 2 > 0 , X_C 2 − X_A 2 > 0 , and X _ B − X _ A / X _ B 2 − X _ A 2 > X _ C − X _ A / X _ C 2 − X _ A 2 falls X _ B 2 − X _ A 2 < 0 , X _ C 2 − X _ A 2 < 0 .

[0079] Preferably, for progressive lenses with an addition Add >= 2 D, the following relationships apply for the components X of the power of the i-th lens present at the reference point, X_i, and for the components X of the second measured values ​​of the i-th eyes, X_i2: X _ B − X _ A / X _ B 2 − X _ A 2 > X _ C − X _ A / X _ C 2 − X _ A 2 falls X _ B 2 − X _ A 2 > 0 , X _ C 2 − X _ A 2 > 0 , and X _ B − X _ A / X _ B 2 − X _ A 2 > X _ C − X _ A / X _ C 2 − X _ A 2 falls X _ B 2 − X _ A 2 < 0 , X _ C 2 − X _ A 2 < 0 .

[0080] The component X can be, for example, the spherical equivalent.

[0081] The series of spectacle lenses can comprise a fourth spectacle lens D for correcting a fourth refractive error and a fifth spectacle lens E for correcting a fifth refractive error. The spectacle lens D has a fourth power P_D at the reference point. The spectacle lens E has a fifth power P_E at the reference point. The fourth refractive error is characterized by at least a first measured value P_D1 and a second measured value P_D2.

[0082] The fifth refractive error is characterized by at least a first measured value P_E1 and a second measured value P_E2.

[0083] The measured values ​​P_D1 and P_E1 are obtained using the first type of measuring device(s) for measuring the refractive error. The measured values ​​P_D2 and P_E2 are obtained using the second type of measuring device(s) for measuring the refractive error.

[0084] The measured values ​​P_D1, P_D2, P_E1, and P_E2 each preferably consist of multiple components. The first measured value P_D1 and the second measured value P_D2 may differ in at least one component X. Likewise, the first measured value P_E1 and the second measured value P_E2 may differ in at least one component X.

[0085] Furthermore, the following conditions are preferably met: the values ​​P_A1, P_D1 and P_E1 are identical component by component: the components X of the second measured values ​​P_A2, P_D2 and P_E2 of the first, fourth and fifth eyes determined with the measuring devices of the second type all differ in pairs, the component X of the first power P_A present at the reference point of the first spectacle lens and the component X of the first measured value of the first eye, P_A1, are almost identical, and the following relationships apply to the components X of the power of the i-th spectacle lens present at the reference point, X_i, and to the components X of the second measured values ​​of the i-th eyes, X_i2: X _ D 2 − X _ A 2 > 0 , X _ E 2 − X _ A 2 < 0 , X _ D − X _ A > 0 and X _ E − X _ A < 0 .

[0086] The series may also include additional lenses with different powers to correct different visual impairments.

[0087] Preferred embodiments of the present invention and further exemplary methods and devices are described below by way of example with reference to the accompanying figures. Individual elements of the described embodiments are not limited to the respective embodiment. Rather, elements of the embodiments can be combined with one another as desired, thereby creating new embodiments. It shows: Figure 1 the systematic deviations of objective and subjective wavefronts for two different aberrometers (model 1); Figure 2 the systematic deviations of objective and subjective wavefronts for two different aberrometers (model 2); Figure 3 the weights of the subjective spherical equivalent g sub according to a first example; Figure 4 the weights of the subjective spherical equivalent g sub according to a third second example ( Fig. 4A ) and a third example ( Fig. 4B ); Figure 5 the change in the estimated value of the refractive error obtained by two different methods for a first aberrometer as the difference between the values ​​obtained by the different methods; Figure 6 the change in the estimate of refractive error obtained by two different methods for a second aberrometer as the difference between the values ​​obtained by the two different methods; Figures 7 to 10 exemplary lenses; Figures 11 to 19 the difference between an estimated spherical equivalent and a measured subjective spherical equivalent as a function of the difference between a measured objective spherical equivalent and a measured subjective spherical equivalent for different additions.

[0088] In the context of this application, reference is made to the following technical terminology: The measurement of the visual impairment of an eye includes, in particular, a subjective refraction determination, an objective refraction determination (e.g., using a refractometer or autorefractometer), or a wavefront measurement. The objective refraction determination or the wavefront measurement are examples of objective refraction.

[0089] A wavefront representation is understood as a parameterization of a 2-dimensional wavefront in 3-dimensional space. This includes, in particular, the following parameterizations: Polar representation (with the components sphere, cylinder and axis), curvature matrix representation, power vector representation (with the components M, J0 and J45), Harris vector representation, Zernike polynomial decomposition (components here are the Zernike coefficients).

[0090] An objective refraction is defined as the determination of an eye's refractive error, or the measured values ​​obtained by that determination. The person being measured with a measuring device used during the objective refraction does not have to assess the visual quality of the image viewed. Objective refractions or objective measured values ​​can be measured using wavefront scanners or autorefractometers, for example.

[0091] Subjective refraction is the determination or measurement of the refractive error of an eye. The refractioned person must assess the visual quality of the viewed image or solve a visual task, such as identifying optotypes, and report the solution. Subjective refractions can be performed by experts using refractive glasses, which contain refractive lenses, or with the aid of phoropters. Subjective refraction can also include a subjectively determined near vision correction, the so-called addition.

[0092] The reference point is the visual point of a spectacle lens, where the power of the lens is determined by the position and orientation of the lens in front of the eye and by the refractive error of the eye for which the lens is intended. This can be the distance reference point, the prism reference point, the centering point, the centering cross, the refractive point, etc. For the definition of the reference point, reference is made to the standards DIN EN ISO 21987 (particularly points 3.5 to 3.11) and DIN EN ISO 13666 (particularly points 5.12 to 5.17).

[0093] With regard to the technical terminology used, particular reference is made to WO 2009 / 007136 A1, the publication by L. Thibos et al., Journal of Vision April 2004, Vol. 4, 9. doi:10.1167 / 4.4.9 and the publication by Iskander et al., Ophthal. Physiol. Opt. 2007 27:245-255, the corresponding statements of which constitute an integral part of the disclosure of the present application.

[0094] A first example relates to a method for determining the refractive error of an eye of a spectacle wearer, comprising: Providing measured values ​​from a first and a second measurement of the refractive error of the eye of the spectacle wearer; calculating an estimator or an estimated value for the refractive error of the eye of the spectacle wearer based on the measured values ​​from the first and the second measurement, wherein measurement inaccuracies or measurement deviations of the first measurement and the second measurement of the refractive error are taken into account when calculating the estimated value of the refractive error.

[0095] If multiple measurements of the refractive error of an eye are known, according to one example of the invention, they can be used to calculate an estimator of the refractive error, depending on their measurement inaccuracies. Preferably, the estimator is closer to the measurement with the lower measurement inaccuracy.

[0096] Basically, two types of measurement inaccuracy can be distinguished: It is known that there are systematic deviations that do not change when a measurement is repeated. It is also known that there are so-called statistical or random deviations in the measured value, which can take on different values ​​when a measurement is repeated and cannot be predicted.

[0097] One way to calculate the estimator or estimated value of the refractive error is to take the systematic deviations of the measurements into account when determining the estimator or estimated value of the refractive error. In this case, the measured value affected by the systematic deviation can be corrected by this systematic deviation in the direction of the other measurement. If the estimator of the refractive error is then calculated from the corrected measured value of the measurement affected by systematic errors and the measured value of the measurement not affected by systematic errors, e.g., using an average, the estimator will be closer to the measured value not affected by systematic errors.

[0098] Another way of calculating the estimator of refractive error is to take the statistical deviations of the measurements into account when determining the estimator of refractive error. This can preferably be done using a weighted mean. The weights are preferably chosen so that the less inaccurate measurement receives the higher weight. For example, for normally distributed variables, the weights can be chosen proportional to the reciprocal variance of the measured variable. In cases where there is no normal distribution, it may be necessary to choose the weights based on experience. The less accurate measurement can, for example, be given weights of 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, 0.05, 0.01 or less, down to a weight of 0. The more accurate measurement can be given a weight of 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 0.95, 0.99 or more, up to a weight of 1. If both measurements are similarly accurate, they can each be given a weight of 0.5.The weights can be chosen so that their sum is 1. In this case, dividing by the sum of the weights is no longer necessary when calculating the weighted mean.

[0099] Since larger statistical deviations can occur when measuring refractive errors, e.g., due to accommodation, fluctuations in the state of accommodation, cataracts, visual acuity, and other variables, it can be advantageous to select the weights based on the difference between the measured refractive errors. For example, in individuals who have little accommodation and have therefore been prescribed an addition of 1.75 D, 2.0 D, 2.25 D, 2.5 D, or higher, the subjective and objective measured values ​​of the spherical equivalent should hardly differ. If there is a slight difference, the spherical equivalents from the subjective and objective measurements can be added together in a weighted manner. Possible weights for the subjective and objective spherical equivalents between 0.3 and 0.7 are reasonable.However, if there are larger differences, the subjective refraction is more reliable, since the person has already been able to form an idea of ​​the visual quality through such a lens during the subjective refraction. In this case, higher weights (e.g., 0.8, 0.9, 0.95, 0.99, or higher, or even 1) should be chosen for the subjective refraction.

[0100] In presbyopes who are still relatively well able to accommodate, i.e. people who have been prescribed an addition of 1.5 D, 1.25 D, 1.0 D, 0.75 D, 0.5 D or less, or people who are not presbyopes, i.e. who effectively have an addition of 0, increased device myopia can occur, for example. In this case, if the spherical equivalent of the objective refraction is myopic compared to the spherical equivalent of the subjective refraction, the latter should be weighted less, e.g. with weights of 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, 0.05, 0.01 or less down to weight 0. However, if the spherical equivalents of the subjective refraction are similar, it is advisable to choose a weighting similar to that for presbyopes with high additions. If the subjective spherical equivalent is more myopic than the objective spherical equivalent, e.g., by 0.5 D, the person may have accommodated during the subjective refraction.Typically, a lower weight would have to be chosen for the subjective spherical equivalent, but since device myopia can often occur during objective refraction, the weight of the subjective spherical equivalent can also be chosen somewhat higher, e.g. between 0.4 and 0.6.

[0101] In practice, both systematic and statistical deviations in measured values ​​of refractive error occur. In this case, systematic deviations are preferably corrected first, and then the corrected measured values ​​are combined in a weighted manner based on the statistical measurement uncertainty.

[0102] In this case too, the estimator or estimated value of the refractive error calculated in this way is closer to the measured value whose measurement inaccuracy is lower.

[0103] An exemplary method for determining a spectacle wearer’s refractive error comprises the following steps: 1) Adjustment of the subjective and / or objective refractions to eliminate systematic differences between the two measurement methods; 2) Combination of the adjusted refractions by forming a weighted average. Step 1 - Alignment of subjective and objective refractions Quantifying systematic differences between subjective and objective refraction

[0104] To align subjective and objective refraction, or to compensate for systematic differences between subjective and objective refraction, these differences are first quantified. To do this, a sufficiently large data set must first be available and processed, as described below.

[0105] The systematic differences between subjective and objective refraction are preferably quantified for the object distance infinity, i.e. for the so-called distance prescription, since this is much more accurate with regard to the spherical equivalent than the near refraction.

[0106] Furthermore, systematic differences typically vary for different instrument models (e.g., aberrometer models) from different manufacturers. It is therefore advantageous to consider the instrument model information during data acquisition and to determine the systematic differences separately for each aberrometer model.

[0107] To calculate an objective refraction from the wavefront measured with a device (such as an aberrometer, a wavefront scanner, etc.), the second-order wavefront is preferably determined using a so-called metric. Possible metrics are described, for example, in L. Thibos et al., Journal of Vision, April 2004, Vol. 4, 9, doi: 10.1167 / 4.4.9. However, other metrics are also conceivable and would be familiar to a person skilled in the art.

[0108] The objective refraction data can be obtained, for example, using the refractive RMSThe metric of Iskander et al. (Iskander et al., Ophthal. Physiol. Opt. 2007 27:245-255) can be calculated from the wavefronts up to the 7th radial order after scaling the Zernike wavefront centrally to the photopic pupil, which was measured during the topography measurement of the devices used (such as aberrometers).

[0109] It is advantageous to know the pupil diameter at which the subjective refraction was performed. This can be done by direct measurement, estimation from other measurement parameters, or estimation based on experience. If the pupil diameter is known, the objectively measured wavefront can first be scaled to this pupil diameter, and then the power vector corresponding to the pupil can be calculated. It is also advantageous to consider the pupil position when scaling the wavefront if it differs between the wavefront measurement and the subjective refraction.

[0110] If the pupil diameter is unknown during subjective refraction, it can be determined as an estimate, for example, from the illuminance incident on the eye during subjective refraction and - if available - also from other quantities such as the largest (in low light) and smallest (in strong light) pupil diameter of the refractionated person.

[0111] Subjective and objective refraction are preferably compared at a distance from the eye that is identical for all data. This distance can be any desired distance. However, it has proven advantageous to first convert the subjective refraction to the distance from the eye at which the wavefronts measured by the aberrometer, wavefront scanner, etc. are located. This avoids the complex propagation of the objective wavefront, which often contains higher-order aberrations. Possible useful distances from the eye include the corneal vertex or the entrance pupil. The data presented in the figures are given for wavefronts or refractions at the corneal vertex.

[0112] In principle, however, it is also possible to convert the objective refraction to a different distance from the eye, whereby the wavefront containing higher-order aberration(s) must also be correctly propagated.

[0113] To analyze as much data as possible with a unified model, both subjective and objective refractions of the left eye can be vertically mirrored. If power vectors are used, the sign of the J45 power vector component must be reversed. Since the distributions of higher-order aberrations in the left and right eyes are mirror-symmetric, the refractions of the right and mirrored left eyes can be analyzed together.

[0114] However, it may also be advantageous not to perform this reflection, for example, if the aberrometer would not measure a reflected wavefront correctly. In this case, the corrections for the left and right eyes must be evaluated and applied separately.

[0115] It is also advantageous to evaluate only the part of the data set that has few or no artifacts to quantify the systematic differences between subjective and objective refraction. Possible artifacts include, for example, device myopia or age-related eye diseases. For example, only the part of the data can be used for which the prescribed addition differs only slightly from the reciprocal object distance for near refraction. This means that the absolute value of the difference between the addition and the reciprocal object distance (with a positive sign convention) must not exceed a predetermined threshold. The threshold can be, for example, 0 D, 0.25 D, or 0.5 D. This reduces the number and extent of device myopia in the data set.

[0116] Another restriction is the requirement for high visual acuity, which avoids artifacts caused by refraction in amblyopic individuals or other anomalies of central vision. This allows only the portion of the data where the visual acuity is higher than a predetermined threshold to be used. Possible limits here include, for example, 1.25 or 1.6 or more for monocular decimal visual acuity. This requirement is preferably met in both eyes.

[0117] It is also advantageous to only use data from refractive patients who use lenses with sufficiently high resolution for subjective refraction (e.g., 0.25 D or preferably 0.125 D for spherical refractive lenses, and 0.5 D or even better, 0.25 D for cylindrical lenses). This can be determined from the distribution of lens orders for each refractive patient.

[0118] To fit the data, a model of subjective refraction is preferably first established. This model can be used to calculate a predicted refraction from the measured objective refraction and, if applicable, other measured variables. This model can be used to statistically quantify deviations between the actually measured subjective refraction and the predicted objective refraction. This model is then fitted to the data in a subsequent step.

[0119] It is advantageous to adapt the model to the subjective refraction in the power vector space (see L. Thibos et al.: Power Vectors: An Application of Fourier Analysis to the Description and Statistical Analysis of Refractive Error, Optometry and Vision Science 74, 6, 367-375), and to use the measured and systematically differing subjective and objective refractions as power vectors of the subjective refraction P ¯ sub = M ˜ sub J 0 ˜ sub J 45 ˜ sub and objective refraction P ˜ obj = M ˜ obj J 0 ˜ obj J 45 ˜ obj The tilde in the notation refers to the uncorrected (raw) data in the data set.

[0120] Within the model, the actually measured subjective refraction is compared with the predicted refraction, P pred = ( M pred , J 0 pred,J 45 pred ), and the random variables ε M , ε J 0 and ε J 45, the latter modeling both the measurement inaccuracy of the device and that of the refraction person: M ˜ sub = M pred + ε M J 0 ˜ sub = J 0 pred + ε J 0 J 45 ˜ sub = J 45 pred + ε J 45 .

[0121] The short form for this system of equations is P ˜ sub = P pred P ˜ obj , … + ε used, whereby ε the power vector ( ε M , ε J 0 , ε J 45 ). Equation 1a applies to every measurement in the data set, so that for the i-th measurement P ι ˜ sub = P pred P ι ˜ obj , … + ε i can be written.

[0122] The power vector of the predicted refraction P preddepends on the objective refraction. It may also depend on additional variables such as subjective refraction, pupil diameter, or other measured variables that arise during refraction or an objective measurement (e.g., an aberrometer measurement).

[0123] One criterion by which the model can be adapted to the data is to maximize the probability density of the random variables ε M , ε J 0 and ε J 45 in the parameter space of the model with the inserted data set, which is also referred to as "fit" in the following. Suitable methods include "maximum likelihood" methods, which maximize the probability of generating the data set to be fitted, the so-called likelihood. In the models disclosed here, the likelihood is given by the following equation: prob ε X Parameter = ∏ i prob ε X i Parameter , where prob ({ ε X}; parameter) is the probability density of the entire data set given the model parameters, and prob ε X i Parameter the probability density of a single measurement i from the data set.

[0124] A possible alternative to the maximum likelihood method is the least squares method, which can also be considered equivalent to the maximum likelihood method with a normally distributed likelihood. Furthermore, prior knowledge about the parameters used can also be incorporated into the models, which is possible in the spirit of Bayesian data analysis.

[0125] The random variable ε X The measurement uncertainty of the power vector component X (where X stands for M, J 0 or J 45) can be reduced, for example, by superimposing a uniform distribution (e.g. in the range -20 to +20 D or in another suitable range) and a Voigt distribution with the Gaussian width σ X<(as standard deviation) and the Lorentz width γ X< (as half-width). The uniform distribution can describe large "outliers" in the data, which are likely p 0 X The Voigt distribution, which is associated with the probability 1 − p 0 X occurs, describes a successful measurement, which can, however, also produce moderate outliers. Overall, the random variables ε X be distributed as follows: prob ε X i Parameter = prob ε X i p 0 X σ X γ X = p 0 X unif ε X i ; min = − 20 , max = 20 + 1 − p 0 X Voigt ε X i σ X γ X .

[0126] As an alternative to the Voigt distribution, the normal distribution can also be chosen, but this yields poorer results. The term with the uniform distribution is particularly important because it can absorb large outliers.

[0127] For example, to calculate the predicted refraction, only the power vector components of the objective refraction can be used as input variables. The calculation can be performed using any parameterizable function, such as polynomials. An example model is the model described by the system of equations (2) (Model 1): M pred M ˜ obj J 0 ˜ obj J 45 ˜ obj = ∑ i = 0 4 a M , i M M ˜ obj i + a J 0 , 1 M J 0 ˜ obj + a J 45 , 1 M J 45 ˜ obj J 0 pred M ˜ obj J 0 ˜ obj J 45 ˜ obj = a M , 1 J 0 M ˜ obj + ∑ i = 0 4 a J 0 , i J 0 J 0 ˜ obj i + a J 45 , 1 J 0 J 45 ˜ obj J 45 pred M ˜ obj J 0 ˜ obj J 45 ˜ obj = a M , 1 J 45 M ˜ obj + a j 0 , 1 J 45 J 45 ˜ obj + ∑ i = 0 4 a J 45 , i J 45 J 45 ˜ obj i

[0128] The a X , i Y the model parameters for the fit of the power vector component Y of the subjective refraction, which is related to the objective power vector components X the objective refraction. Here is Y for M pred , J 0 pred or J 45 pred and X for M ˜ obj , J 0 ˜ obj , J 45 ˜ obj .

[0129] The individual power vector components M pred , J 0 pred or J 45 predof the predicted refraction are preferably functions of all three components of the power vector of the measured (raw) objective refraction.

[0130] In an alternative model, the information from the unfitted components of the subjective power vector is also used to calculate the predicted refraction. The calculation can be performed using any parameterizable function, such as polynomials. An example model is the model described by the system of equations (3). (Model 2): M pred M ˜ obj J 0 ˜ obj J 45 ˜ obj J 0 ˜ sub J 45 ˜ sub = ∑ i = 0 4 a M , i M M ˜ obj i + a J 0 , 1 M J 0 ˜ obj + a J 45 , 1 M J 45 ˜ obj + b j 0 , 1 M J 0 ˜ sub + b j 45 , 1 M J 45 ˜ sub J 0 pred M ˜ obj J 0 ˜ obj J 45 ˜ obj J 0 ˜ sub J 45 ˜ sub = a M , 1 J 0 M ˜ obj + ∑ i = 0 4 a J 0 , i J 0 J 0 ˜ obj i + a J 45 , 1 J 0 J 45 ˜ obj + b M , 1 J 0 M ˜ sub + b J 45 , 1 J 0 J 45 ˜ sub J 45 pred M ˜ obj J 0 ˜ obj J 45 ˜ obj J 0 ˜ sub J 45 ˜ sub = a M , 1 J 45 M ˜ obj + a J 0 , 1 J 45 J 45 ˜ obj + ∑ i = 0 4 a j 45 , i J 45 J 45 ˜ obj i + b M , 1 J 45 M ˜ sub + b J 0 , 1 J 45 J 0 ˜ sub

[0131] Due to the possible interaction of subjective and objective power vector components, errors in subjective refraction determination can also be modeled or accounted for. This allows for modeling errors resulting from refraction practices, such as changing the cylinder while maintaining a constant sphere, which can arise due to a lack of resolution in the refractive lenses or due to the optician's lack of knowledge.

[0132] As an alternative to the "maximum likelihood" model described above, estimators of subjective refraction, such as the running median of the power vector of subjective refraction, can also be calculated. A parameterizable description of the predicted power vector, such as using equation system 2 or 3, can then be fitted to the calculated estimator of subjective refraction using the least squares method. Of course, estimators other than the mean or median can also be used, provided their errors are approximately normally distributed before the least squares method is used. However, using the pure mean or directly fitting the data with the least squares method is not advantageous due to possible outliers in the data.

[0133] Examples of the parameter sets associated with Models 1 and 2 are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Tables 1 and 2 show the fit results for two different aberrometers (Aberrometer 1 and Aberrometer 2). The parameters a Y , i X quantify the systematic deviations; the other parameters quantify the measurement uncertainties of the aberrometers. The symbol "*" in Tables 1 and 2 indicates that the corresponding variable is the dependent variable to be predicted, thus there is no corresponding parameter. In particular, the asterisks indicate that there is no corresponding parameter; otherwise, the solution to Equation 1a would be trivially satisfied with the missing parameter = 1 and all others = -0.

[0134] Table 1 contains the fit results of the model without the additional influence of subjective power vector components (Model 1). Table 2 contains the fit results of the model with the additional influence of subjective power vector components (Model 2). Table 1 Aberrometer 1 Aberrometer 2 x M J0 J45 M J0 J45 ln p 0 X -5,988559e+00 -14,683359254 -1,030284e+01 -8,260018e+00 -9,102539677 -1,849467e+01 ln σ X -1,473851e+00 -2,260253864 -2,399429e+00 -1,484472e+00 -2,257872473 -2,412253e+00 ln γ X -3,708547e+00 -4,014985072 -4,173024e+00 -3,429828e+06 -3,995043504 -4,137689e+00 a X , 0 X 2,597766e-02 -0,005823866 1;167734e-03 -8,455234e-02 -0,002214542 -1,396330e-03 a M , 1 X 9,553421e-01 0,003854467 3,013793e-04 9,448156e-01 0,003801166 8,891828e-04 a J 0 , 1 X -1,089862e-02 0,884505067 -2,097478e-02 -2,1255446-02 0,880071958 -1,653286e-02 a J 45 , 1 X -2,055721e-02 0,018582216 8,162184e-01 -1,948651e-02 0,012354087 8,022532e-01 a X , 2 X -7,955925e-03 0,033536394 8,674891e-03 -9,785492e-03 0,029741058 4,053460e-02 a X , 3 X -7,773469e-05 0,010410193 4,275422e-02 4,552031e-05 0,016098649 3,814216e-02 a X , 4 X 7,617699e-05 -0,006240530 -5,976109e-03 1,110717e-04 -0,003251211 -1,156952e-02 Table 2 Aberrometer 1 Aberrometer 2 x M J0 J45 M J0 J45 ln p 0 X -1,158685e+01 -23,634670622 -1,80128 1e+01 -9,917428e+00 -13,824630577 -14,15287304 ln σ X -1,478691e+00 -2,255383300 -2,397918e+00 -1,490140e+00 -2,257999967 -2,41899596 ln γ X -3,645794e+00 4,058939935 -4,179863e+00 -3,451811e+00 -4,031299112 -4,12621854 a X , 0 X 3,849776e-02 -0,005832360 1,195480e-03 -9,787282e-02 -0,010296598 0,00105432 a M , 1 X 9,530755e-01 0,049540280 7,342407e-04 9,492652e-01 0,057330004 -0,01627960 a J 0 , 1 X 2,1501680-01 0,884831027 -3,017279e-02 2,295930e-01 0,878258986 -0,03860188 a J 45 , 1 X -3,884270e-03 -0,004837432 8,160447e-01 -1,549439e-01 0,008366583 0,80318242 b M , 1 X * -0,047771141 -4,900606e-04 * -0,056451915 0,01814338 b J 0 , 1 X -2,406537e-01 * 1,039228e-02 : -2,730474e-01 * 0,02477013 b J 45 , 1 X -8,299017e-03 0,027505589 * 1,467214e-01 0,003420205 * a X , 2 X -8,175954e-03 0,031644005 8,539891e-03 -9,243794e-03 0,032050577 0,03769131 a X , 3 X 3,245316e-05 0,009592653 4,276131e-02 -2,466715e-05 0,016408827 0,03787041 a X , 4 X 7,550834e-05 -0,005829236 -5,949418e-03 1,072269e-04 -0,003381591 -0,01119501

[0135] With these parameterized models, the systematic deviations of subjective and objective refraction in different device models (e.g., two different aberrometer models) can be corrected. The course of the respective power vector components X with the objective power vector components Y≠X set to 0 is shown in Figures 1 and 2 shown.

[0136] Figures 1 and 2show the systematic deviations of objective and subjective wavefronts for two different aberrometers (Aberrometer 1: solid line, Aberrometer 2: dashed line). Each power vector component was quantified using two different models. Model 1 ( Figures 1A to 1C ) does not include the influence of subjective refraction, in model 2 ( Figures 2A to 2B ) includes the influence of subjective refraction.

[0137] Fig. 1A and 2A show the difference between the predicted value (predicted M_sbj) of the spherical equivalent M determined by subjective refraction and the value (M_obj_raw) of the spherical equivalent measured by objective refraction as a function of the measured value (M_obj_raw) of the spherical equivalent M measured by objective refraction.

[0138] Fig. 1 B and 2Bshow the difference between the predicted value (predicted J0_sbj) of the component J0 of the power vector of the subjective refraction and the measured value (J0_obj_raw) of the component J0 determined by objective refraction as a function of the measured value (J0_obj_raw) of the component J0 determined by objective refraction.

[0139] Fig. 1C and 2C show the difference between the predicted value (predicted j0_sbj) of the component J45 of the power vector of the subjective refraction and the measured value (j45_obj_row) of the component J0 determined by objective refraction as a function of the measured value (J45_obj_raw) of the component J0 determined by objective refraction.

[0140] The vertical lines L1 (model 1) and L2 (model 2) mark the areas in the data set where there is a sufficiently high density of data, here approximately 50 eyes (left + right) per diopter of the respective power vector component.

[0141] As can be seen from the Figures 1 and 2 As can be seen, with both the first and second aberrometer models, the spherical equivalent for hyperopes is subjectively lower than the objective equivalent. For myopes, the opposite is true, and not as pronounced. Overall, therefore, the subjective refraction shows a weaker correction in magnitude. This is also the case for the astigmatic power vector components. Correction of systematic deviations of objective refraction

[0142] If one assumes that the objective refraction is systematically incorrect, the objective refraction can be adjusted to the subjective refraction on average using, for example, Model 1 or Model 2. This is done by using the power vector difference between subjective and objective refraction, Δ, determined when fitting the model to a large number of data. P , to the power vector of objective refraction P obj If the data were fitted to a model described in system of equations 1, then Δ P P ¯ obj = P pred P ˜ obj − P ˜ obj .

[0143] When using Model 1, the difference between subjective and objective refraction depends solely on the objective refraction: P obj = P ˜ obj + Δ P P ˜ obj

[0144] To avoid overshoots of the model and thus an incorrect correction, it is preferable to use the corrections Δ P to limit to an area where sufficient data is available: P obj = P ˜ obj + Δ P B P ˜ obj

[0145] The function limits B (.) the power vector P obj to the area where sufficient data is available. B(.) can be implemented, for example, as a perpendicular projection onto the sides of a simple box. Outside the area B, the change Δ P be set to a constant value.

[0146] Table 3 shows possible limitations of the model's validity range. The power vector component X is mapped to max(min(X, Max_X), Min_X) by the limiting function B(.). The limits are based on a data density of 50 measurements per diopter of the respective power vector component. Within the range shown in Table 3, step 1 corrects the systematic differences relatively well. Outside the range, the change Δ P kept constant.

[0147] Alternatively, other criteria can be used, such as the data density divided by the determinant of the Jacobian matrix of the correction Δ P [ P obj ] relative to the objective power vector, ie data density / det[∂Δ P [ P obj ] / ∂ P O bj ]. Table 3 Example 1 Example 2 Power vector component X M / Dpt J0 / Dpt J45 / Dpt M / Dpt J0 / Dpt J45 / Dpt Min_X -7,04 -1,87 -1,23 -5,72 -1,44 -1,06 Max_X 5,89 2,02 1,31 4,76 1,47 1,19

[0148] Other boundary functions are also conceivable, such as the projection of any point in the area with no or only a small amount of data onto the boundary of an iso-probability density surface of the data in the space of the uncorrected, objective power vector. It is advantageous if the projection is carried out along the gradient of the probability density of the data. In this case, the projection lines are obtained by solving a linear differential equation and run through the power vector to be projected, which represents a classic initial value problem. If the density of the data is described by a multidimensional (e.g., 3-dimensional) distribution, the solution of the differential equation can even be carried out analytically. For other probability density functions, a numerical solution may be necessary.Once a projection line has been found, its intersection with the iso-probability surface corresponding to the desired data density can be determined numerically using a 1-dimensional search along the projection line.

[0149] Other types of correction limitations are also possible. For example, it would be conceivable to limit the change Δ P outside the limited area, but depends on the distance of the uncorrected, objective power vector P obj to the edge of the boundary. This effectively corresponds to a piecewise defined model that is a higher order polynomial inside the boundary and linear outside the boundary. The transition at the boundary must be chosen so that the model with respect to P obj is continuously derivable.

[0150] In the simplest case, the subjective refraction is not corrected and - as shown above - only the objective refraction is adjusted to the subjective refraction in order to compensate for the quantified systematic differences between the two refraction methods. Correction of systematic deviations in subjective refraction

[0151] However, it is also possible to adjust the subjective refraction to the objective refraction. In this case, the power vector of a corrected subjective refraction is calculated using P sub , the systematic difference Δ determined using the model P from the power vector of the original subjective refraction P sub subtracted: P sub = P ˜ sub − Δ P P ˜ obj .

[0152] This may be necessary, for example, if the systematic differences arise from questionable refraction techniques, e.g. by omitting or changing the power of the cylinder refractive lens without adjusting the sphere accordingly by half the change in the power of the cylinder refractive lens in order to keep the spherical equivalent constant. Correction of systematic deviations of objective and subjective refraction

[0153] In general, it may also be advantageous to estimate the power vector of the systematic differences between subjective and objective power vectors, Δ P , into two parts, one of which, Δ P obj , used to correct the power vector of the objective refraction, and the other, Δ P sub , used to correct subjective refraction: Δ P = Δ P sub P ˜ sub P ˜ obj + Δ P obj P ˜ sub P ˜ obj P obj = P ˜ obj + Δ P obj P ˜ sub P ˜ obj P sub = P ˜ sub − Δ P sub P ˜ sub P ˜ obj .

[0154] The differences Δ P obj and Δ P sub can be determined by both the uncorrected, objective refraction, P̃ obj ,as well as the uncorrected, subjective refraction, P sub , depend on. P obj the corrected objective refraction, and P sub the corrected subjective refraction.

[0155] The parts of the systematic differences can advantageously be divided in such a way that terms of the model containing differences of uncorrected subjective and objective power vector components (e.g. terms proportional to J 0 ˜ sub − J 0 ˜ obj or a power thereof, which occur in the spherical equivalent model), can be used to correct the subjective refraction, since it is highly likely that this is the effect of a questionable refraction method, such as the one mentioned above. The remaining terms (e.g., those that depend purely on the components of the power vector of the uncorrected objective refraction) can be used to correct the objective refraction.

[0156] It is also possible to carry out the corrections with a real factor common to all power vector components α , or with different real factors for each power vector component α,β,γ, on the objective and subjective differences Δ P obj and Δ P sub to divide: P obj = P ˜ obj + α Δ P obj P ˜ sub P ˜ obj P sub = P ˜ sub − 1 − α Δ P sub P ˜ sub P ˜ obj , or P obj = P ˜ obj + α 0 0 0 β 0 0 0 γ Δ P obj P ˜ sub P ˜ obj P sub = P ˜ sub − 1 − α 0 0 0 β 0 0 0 γ Δ P sub P ˜ sub P ˜ obj

[0157] However, this would only make sense if it were known that a third refraction method exhibits no or simply lower systematic errors than subjective refraction and objective refraction, whose systematic deviation from each other has already been quantified. Furthermore, the systematic deviation of subjective refraction and objective refraction from the third refraction method would have to be proportional to the systematic deviations between subjective and objective refraction.

[0158] The calculation of the corrected objective and subjective refractions can of course also be combined with a limitation of the correction.

[0159] If the corrected objective values ​​are displayed to the person performing the refraction, e.g., on an aberrometer or autorefractometer, it is possible that the subjective refraction may be influenced by the objective measurement result. It may therefore be advantageous to perform the procedure described above to determine the correction for systematic differences between subjective and objective refraction several times, e.g., using data sets from six months of orders each. In this way, the influence of the objective refraction on the subjective refraction is gradually reduced.

[0160] Alternatively, a model can be chosen to determine the systematic differences that quantifies the proportion and extent of the influence. Such models can be established, for example, using estimated values ​​or by evaluating studies with a relatively small number of refraction-experienced and refraction-active individuals, some of whom must perform an objective refraction before the subjective refraction, and the other part of whom is not allowed to perform an objective refraction. It is also possible for one and the same refraction-experienced individual to perform subjective refractions on different individuals both with and without a prior objective refraction. In this case, it is also possible and possibly complementary to compare two distributions of a larger amount of refraction data (e.g. as power vectors) that were created by refraction-experienced individuals who had no opportunity to measure an objective refraction (first distribution).from those who have necessarily performed an objective refraction (second distribution). Such data sets are generated in large quantities during the lens ordering process and can be obtained and analyzed relatively easily without the need for special studies. Using such a model eliminates the need to repeat the procedure for determining the correction.

[0161] Instead of equalizing the systematic errors of the subjective and objective refractions as power vectors, other representations of refractive errors can of course also be used, such as sphere, cylinder, axis or the Zernike decomposition of wavefronts.

[0162] When represented as a wavefront, the subjective refraction is converted into a wavefront (subjective wavefront), preferably at the pupil diameter present during refraction. Methods for converting it into a wavefront are known from the prior art. In this case, the higher-order aberrations produced by the refractive lenses could also be taken into account, even if these are generally low. A model for predicting the subjective wavefront from the objective wavefront can then be fitted to the available data, i.e., to the subjective and objective wavefronts. It can be advantageous to appropriately normalize the representations, such as Zernike coefficients, before analysis. The correction used for the adjustment is calculated analogously to the method with power vectors described above from the difference between the predicted subjective wavefront and the objective wavefront.

[0163] Finally, a correction of the systematic deviations between objective and subjective refraction for objects at infinity (called distance refraction) as shown above can also be applied to the near prescription, which is also called near refraction.

[0164] In the best case, the objective near refraction is present as a wavefront at the same distance d from the eye as the corrections for the systematic deviations of the subjective and objective distance refraction. If this is not the case, it must be converted to this distance according to the state of the art. The same applies to the subjective near refraction.

[0165] If the near refraction is not present as a wavefront, but as the effect of a spectacle lens, it should be noted that the near refraction itself cannot be propagated for the conversion. Rather, a spherical wavefront emanating from a point at the object distance corresponding to the near refraction, which was refracted by an imaginary refractive lens containing the near refraction, must be propagated at the distance from the eye corresponding to the near refraction (the so-called corneal-vertex distance).

[0166] The correction of systematic deviations can now be applied to the wavefront calculated in this way. If you want to obtain a corrected near refraction again – this time at a distance d to the eye - so the difference to a spherical reference wavefront must be calculated, which, starting from a point located at the refraction distance, is projected to the same distance d was propagated. Step 2 - Combination of the corrected wavefronts or the corrected components of the refraction

[0167] The power vectors of the subjective and objective wavefronts P sub and P obj are calculated using a weighted average after correcting for systematic differences. The weights of the spherical equivalent M are of great importance, since the risk of an overly myopic refraction changes depending on the accommodative capacity, especially if this is limited due to the aging process of the lens. The weights of the astigmatic components, ie, for J0 and J45, can be set to 0.7 for subjective refraction, and the corresponding objective components to 0.3.

[0168] According to one example, advantageous spherical equivalent weights are proposed, allowing for a particularly accurate estimation of the wearer's refractive error. The motivation for the proposed spherical equivalent weights stems from the following idea: In cases where objective and subjective spherical equivalents are consistent, both data sources should be used. If the measurements are inconsistent, the weights should be adjusted depending on the risk of an overly myopic measurement: the lower the addition, the higher the risk of an overly myopic measurement (both in subjective and objective refraction). In this case, the more positive spherical equivalent is given a higher weight.The higher the addition, the lower the risk of an overly myopic measurement, so a large discrepancy between the subjective and objective spherical equivalents is likely due to other reasons. Therefore, in these cases, the subjective measurement is preferably given high weighting, since the refractive patient has already tested a corresponding lens during refraction. Calculating the weights

[0169] The weights can be adjusted depending on the difference between the objectively and subjectively determined spherical equivalents, Δ M = M sub − M obj , and depending on the accommodation capacity, which can be determined from the addition, Akk = − Add + A 1 N , calculated or determined.

[0170] These include: M sub : spherical equivalent of subjective refraction M obf : spherical equivalent of objective refraction Acc: Accommodation capacity calculated from the addition Add:addition measured during refraction, or the prescribed addition A 1 N : reciprocal object distance in the addition determination (negative sign convention, ie A 1 N < 0 , e.g. for an object at a distance of 40 cm A 1 N = − 2,5 Dpt )

[0171] To calculate the weights g sub M Δ M , Akk the subjectively determined spherical equivalent M sub can initially depend on Δ M Auxiliary weights g sub M Δ M , Akk 1 and g sub M Δ M , Akk 2 be determined: g sub M Δ M , Akk i = g sub M Δ M − 2 , Akk i für Δ M ≤ Δ M − 2 g sub M 0 Akk i ⋅ Δ M − Δ M − 2 Δ M − 1 − Δ M − 2 + g sub M Δ M − 2 , Akk i ⋅ Δ M − 1 − Δ M Δ M − 1 − Δ M − 2 für Δ M − 2 < Δ M < Δ M − 1 g sub M 0 Akk i für Δ M − 1 ≤ Δ M ≤ Δ M + 1 g sub M 0 Akk i ⋅ Δ M + 2 − Δ M Δ M + 2 − Δ M + 1 + g sub M Δ M + 2 , Akk i ⋅ Δ M − Δ M + 1 Δ M + 2 − Δ M + 1 für Δ M + 1 < Δ M < Δ M + 2 g sub M Δ M + 2 , Akk i für Δ M + 2 ≤ Δ M , where for i 1 or 2 is used.

[0172] The subjective weight is obtained by placing the auxiliary weights in the range between Akk 1 and Akk 2 can be linearly interpolated: g sub M Δ M , Akk = g sub M Δ M , Akk 1 für Akk ≤ Akk 1 g sub M Δ M , Akk 1 ⋅ Akk 2 − Akk Akk 2 − Akk 1 + g sub M Δ M , Akk 2 ⋅ Akk − Akk 1 Akk 2 − Akk 1 für Akk 1 < Akk < Akk 2 g sub M Δ M , Akk 2 für Akk 2 ≤ Akk ,

[0173] The weights of the objectively determined spherical equivalent can be calculated from the weights of the subjectively determined spherical equivalent by g obj M Δ M , Akk = 1 − g sub M Δ M , Akk be calculated.

[0174] The following are the ranges for the support points and their weights: − 1 , 5 Dpt ≤ Δ M − 2 ≤ − 0 , 5 Dpt − 1 , 0 Dpt ≤ Δ M − 1 ≤ − 0 , 25 Dpt 0 , 25 Dpt ≤ Δ M + 1 ≤ 1 , 0 Dpt 0 , 5 Dpt ≤ Δ M + 2 ≤ 1 , 5 Dpt where Δ M − 2 < Δ M − 1 < Δ M + 1 < Δ M + 2 . 0 Dpt ≤ Akk 1 ≤ 1 , 25 Dpt 1 , 0 Dpt ≤ Akk 2 ≤ 2 , 75 Dpt where Akk 1 < Akk 2 .

[0175] The weights at the support points can be selected from the following ranges: 0 , 8 ≤ g sub M Δ M − 2 , Akk 1 ≤ 1 0 , 3 ≤ g sub M 0 Akk 1 ≤ 0 , 7 0 , 8 ≤ g sub M Δ M + 2 , Akk 1 ≤ 1 0 ≤ g sub M Δ M − 2 , Akk 2 ≤ 0 , 5 0 , 3 ≤ g sub M 0 Akk 2 ≤ 0 , 7 0 , 8 ≤ g sub M Δ M + 2 , Akk 2 ≤ 1

[0176] Examples for the selection of weights and support points: Example 1: − Δ M − 2 = Δ M + 2 = 1 , 0 Dpt − Δ M − 1 = Δ M + 1 = 0 , 5 Dpt Akk 1 = 0 Dpt Akk 2 = 1 , 75 Dpt g sub M Δ M − 2 , Akk 1 = 0 , 95 g sub M 0 Akk 1 = 0 , 75 g sub M Δ M + 2 , Akk 1 = 0 , 95 g sub M Δ M − 2 , Akk 2 = 0 , 5 g sub M 0 Akk 2 = 0 , 75 g sub M Δ M + 2 , Akk 2 = 0 , 95 Example 2: − Δ M − 2 = Δ M + 2 = 0 Dpt − Δ M − 1 = Δ M + 1 = 0 Dpt Akk 1 = 0 Dpt Akk 2 = 1 , 75 Dpt g sub M Δ M − 2 , Akk 1 = 0 , 5 g sub M 0 Akk 1 = 0 , 75 g sub M Δ M + 2 , Akk 1 = 1 g sub M Δ M − 2 , Akk 2 = 0 , 75 g sub M 0 Akk 2 = 0 , 75 g sub M Δ M + 2 , Akk 2 = 0 , 75 Example 3: − Δ M − 2 = Δ M + 2 = 1 , 5 Dpt − Δ M − 1 = Δ M + 1 = 0 , 75 Dpt Akk 1 = 0 , 5 Dpt Akk 2 = 2 , 0 Dpt g sub M Δ M − 2 , Akk 1 = 1 g sub M 0 Akk 1 = 0 , 5 g sub M Δ M + 2 , Akk 1 = 1 g sub M Δ M − 2 , Akk 2 = 0 g sub M 0 Akk 2 = 0 , 5 g sub M Δ M + 2 , Akk 2 = 1

[0177] Figure 3shows the weights of the subjective spherical equivalent g sub M according to example 1. Figure 4A shows the weights of the subjective spherical equivalent g sub M according to example 2. Figure 4C and shows the weights of the subjective spherical equivalent g sub M according to Example 3. The Fig. 3 The weights shown are more advantageous in terms of reducing the statistical measurement inaccuracies of the subjective and / or objective measurement than those in Fig. 4A weights shown.

[0178] The weights according to Example 1 ( Fig. 3 ), example 2 ( Fig. 4A ) and Example 3 ( Fig. 4B ) depend on the addition and the difference (or the difference) of the spherical equivalents Δ corrected in step 1 M = M sub - M obj The functions consist of several plateaus of constant weight, between which linear interpolation takes place, as described above.

[0179] A significant difference in the choice of weights according to Example 1 compared to the choice of weights according to Example 2 is that in the range where Δ M is approximately normally distributed, here e.g. in the range -0.5Dpt < Δ M < +0.5Dpt, a plateau with a weight of e.g. g sub M = 0 , 75 is introduced. Most measurements fall into this range. Due to the approximately normally distributed difference Δ M it can be assumed that the spherical equivalents of the subjective and objective refraction are not contradictory, so that the spherical equivalent of the objective refraction can receive a relatively high weight, e.g. 0.25. Outside this range, with a high addition, the subjective weight increases to a very high value, e.g. 0.95 or even 1.0, regardless of the sign of the difference Δ M, since accommodation is very unlikely here. With low additions, the subjective refraction is only given a high weight if it was more hyperopic than the objective refraction. If it is myopic, the subjective weight is reduced to a low value, e.g., 0.5.

[0180] The sign of Δ M dependent change of the weights is the second fundamental difference between the two types of weighting: in the method according to the first example this takes place at low additions, in the method according to the second example this is the case at high additions.

[0181] To combine near prescriptions, the corrected wavefronts corresponding to subjective and objective refraction can be combined in a similar way to distance refraction. However, due to the greater measurement uncertainty, it is advantageous to only give a weak weight to objective refraction, as described in the state of the art.

[0182] In the following, the changes resulting from the previously known procedure for subjective, objective, and combined refraction are evaluated using a (relatively small) data set (reference data set). In the following example, the subjective refraction is not changed and is therefore not shown here.

[0183] Figures 5 and 6 show the change in the estimated value of the refractive error (komb_F) calculated using two different methods for a pupil interpolated between a photopic and a mesopic pupil for two different devices. In particular, the Figures 5 and 6the difference between the values ​​obtained by a first method comprising the steps 1 and 2 described above and with the weights according to Example 1 and a second method which is carried out without adjusting the objective to the subjective refraction in the mean (ie without step 1, only step 2) and with the weights according to Example 22. The objective measured values ​​are obtained with two different devices (aberrometers), Aberrometer 1 and 2, where Fig. 5 the results for the first aberrometer and Fig. 6 shows the results for the second aberrometer. Figures 5A and 6A show the differences of the spherical equivalent M, Figures 5B and 6B the differences of the component J0 and Figures 5C and 6C the differences for component J45.

[0184] The objective refraction for a pupil estimated from two other pupils (a photopic pupil and a mesopic pupil) shows the expected differences resulting from step 1 of the procedure. The refraction for the interpolated pupil, combined from the subjective corrected refraction and the objective corrected refraction, also shows the expected changes, mainly resulting from the adjustment of objective to subjective.

[0185] The "outliers" in the diagrams are all non-presbyopes who are at risk of overly myopic refraction. In these cases, the more positive refraction is given a high weighting.

[0186] A procedure of giving a higher weighting to the refraction with a higher plus value when the addition is high would lead to a systematic shift of the combined refraction towards plus, even without "outliers" such as device myopia, if systematic differences between the two refractions have already been corrected. This is undesirable, since an excessively hyperopic refraction cannot be compensated by accommodation or gaze downwards in the progressive lens. Since device myopia is unlikely with high additions and can only occur with low additions, the new procedure with step 1) and, if applicable, step 2) with the Fig. 3 shown weights in this aspect lead to a better combined refraction.

[0187] Correcting the systematic errors of the objective refraction (step 1) together with an addition-dependent weighting of the refraction (step 2) is more advantageous than an alternative procedure in which the systematically deviating refraction is only slightly weighted but not shifted. This is particularly advantageous because the mean subjective refraction can be calculated with high accuracy from the objective refraction, even when systematic differences occur between the two refraction types. Instead, the choice of weights should ideally be based on the reliability of the already corrected refraction methods.

[0188] Overall, the proposed procedure with steps 1 and 2 leads to a decrease in the probability of complaints for spectacle lenses where both subjective and objective refraction are included in the calculation, especially in the power ranges where aberrometers systematically measure differently than subjective refraction.

[0189] Below are examples of series of spectacle lenses that can be calculated and manufactured using the method described above. Lens series B1:

[0190] Series of spectacle lenses for correcting the visual impairment of a plurality of eyes, comprising at least a first spectacle lens A which has at least in one reference point a first power P_A which is a power determined by at least corrects a first measured value P_A1 consisting of several components determined with a measuring device of a first type and a second measured value P_A2 consisting of several components determined with a measuring device of a second type, wherein the first measured value P_A1 of the first lens determined with a measuring device of the first type and the second measured value P_A2 of the first lens determined with a measuring device of the second type differ in at least one component X, the component X of the first power P_A of the first lens present at the reference point of the first spectacle lens is closer to the component X of the measured value P_A1 or P_A2 of the first lens whose measuring device has the lower inaccuracy in measuring the component X, and wherein the components X are a component of a wavefront representation of the ametropia, a linear combination thereof or quantities derived therefrom.. Lens series B2:

[0191] Series of spectacle lenses according to series B1, wherein furthermore the component X of the first power P_A present at the reference point of the first spectacle lens and the component X of the first measured value of the first eye P_A1 are almost identical, although the first measured value of the first eye P_A1 and the second measured value of the first eye P_A2 differ at least in the component X. Lens series B3:

[0192] Series of spectacle lenses according to series B1 or B2, which at least one second spectacle lens B, which has a second power P_B at least in a reference point identically designated to the first spectacle lens, which corrects a visual defect of a second eye characterized by at least one first measured value P_B1 consisting of several components, determined with a measuring device of the first type, and a second measured value P_B2 consisting of several components, determined with a measuring device of the second type, and at least one third spectacle lens C, which has a third power P_B at least in a reference point identical to the first spectacle lens,which corrects a refractive error of a third eye characterized by at least one first measured value P_C1 consisting of several components determined with a measuring device of the first type and a second measured value P_C2 consisting of several components determined with a measuring device of the second type, wherein the first measured values ​​P_A1, P_B1 and P_C1 of the first, second and third eyes determined with measuring devices of the first type are identical in terms of components, the components X of the second measured values ​​P_A2, P_B2 and P_C2 of the first, second and third eyes determined with measuring devices of the second type all differ in pairs, the component X of the first power P_A present at the reference point of the first spectacle lens and the component X of the first measured value of the first eye P_A1 are almost identical, and wherein for the components X of the power of the i-th spectacle lens present at the reference point, X_i,and for the components X of the second measured values ​​of the i-th eyes, X_i2, the following relationships apply: (X_B - X_A) / (X_B2 - X_A2) not equal to (X_C - X_A) / (X_C2 - X_A2) abs(X_B2 - X_A2) < abs(X_C2 - X_A2) signum(X_B2 - X_A2) = signum(X_C2 - X_A2). , Lens series B4:

[0193] Series of spectacle lenses according to series B3, where: the first, second and third spectacle lenses are single-vision lenses or progressive lenses having the same addition Add, where Add <= 1.5 dpt, and where the following relationships apply to the components X of the power of the i-th spectacle lens at the reference point, X_i, and to the components X of the second measured values ​​of the i-th eyes, X_i2: (X_B - X_A) / (X_B2 - X_A2) < (X_C - X_A) / (X_C2 - X_A2) if X_B2 - X_A2 > 0, X_C2 - X_A2 > 0, and (X_B - X_A) / (X_B2 - X_A2) > (X_C - X_A) / (X_C2 - X_A2) if X_B2 - X_A2 < 0, X_C2 - X_A2 < 0. Lens series B5:

[0194] Series of spectacle lenses according to series B3, where the first, second and third lenses are progressive lenses having the same addition Add, where Add >= 2dpt, and where the following relationships apply to the components X of the power of the i-th lens at the reference point, X_i, and to the components X of the second measured values ​​of the i-th eyes, X_i2: (X_B - X_A) / (X_B2 - X_A2) > (X_C - X_A) / (X_C2 - X_A2) if X_B2 - X_A2 > 0, X_C2 - X_A2 > 0, and (X_B - X_A) / (X_B2 - X_A2) > (X_C - X_A) / (X_C2 - X_A2) if X_B2 - X_A2 < 0, X_C2 - X_A2 < 0. Lens series B6:

[0195] Series of spectacle lenses according to one of the series B1 to B5, wherein the measuring device of the first type can be used for subjective refraction. Lens series B7:

[0196] Series of spectacle lenses according to one of the series B1 to B6, wherein the measuring device of the second type can be used to determine the objective refraction. Lens series B8:

[0197] Series of spectacle lenses according to one of the series B1 to B6, which: comprises at least one fourth spectacle lens D, which has a fourth power P_D at least in a reference point identically designated to the first spectacle lens, which corrects a visual defect of a fourth eye characterized by at least one first measured value P_D1 consisting of several components, determined with a measuring device of the first type, and a second measured value P_D2 consisting of several components, determined with a measuring device of the second type, and comprises at least one fifth spectacle lens E, which has a fifth power P_E at least in a reference point identically designated to the first spectacle lens,which corrects a refractive error of a fourth eye characterized by a first measured value P_E1 consisting of several components, determined at least with a measuring device of the first type, and a second measured value P_E2 consisting of several components, determined with a measuring device of the second type, and wherein the first measured values ​​P_A1, P_D1 and P_E1 of the first, fourth and fifth eyes determined with measuring devices of the first type are identical in terms of components, the components X of the second measured values ​​P_A2, P_D2 and P_E2 of the first, fourth and fifth eyes determined with measuring devices of the second type all differ in pairs, the component X of the first power P_A present at the reference point of the first spectacle lens and the component X of the first measured value of the first eye P_A1 are almost identical, and wherein for the components X of the power of the i-th spectacle lens present at the reference point, X_i,and for the components X of the second measured values ​​of the i-th eyes, X_i2, the following relationships apply: , X _ D 2 − X _ A 2 > 0 , X _ E 2 − X _ A 2 > 0 , X _ D − X _ A > 0 , und X _ E − X _ A < 0 .

[0198] Figures 7 to 10 show individual representative lenses of the above series of lenses. The lenses shown have selected properties that allow properties of the lenses selected by Δ M Dependent weights from Figures 11 to 20 can be determined using 1, 3, or 5 lenses of a series, regardless of whether systematic errors were corrected or not. The lenses located on the solid or dashed lines in the detailed figures have the same subjective spherical equivalent (on the line shown, the subjective spherical equivalent is M_A1 = M_A = 4.1 D). The solid or dashed lines refer to support points and weights from Examples 1 and 2, respectively.

[0199] Figure 7refers to a spectacle lens A from the spectacle lens series B2, which was calculated using a method comprising step 1. The Fig. 7 The lens A shown has the subjectively measured spherical equivalent power at the reference point (i.e., M_A = MA_1 = 4.1 D), although the objectively measured spherical equivalent (M_A2 = 4.6 D) differs significantly from the subjectively measured spherical equivalent (M_A1 = 4.1 D). The objectively measured spherical equivalent was nevertheless taken into account in the calculation.

[0200] Figure 8 refers to another spectacle lens A from a spectacle lens series B2, which was calculated using a method comprising steps 1 and 2. The spectacle lens shown in Fig. 8A has similar properties to the one shown in Fig. 7 The lens shown in the figure is shown. Detail 8A corresponds Figure 11 and 12 .

[0201] Figure 9refers to 3 spectacle lenses A, B, C from the spectacle lens series B3, which were calculated using a method comprising steps 1 and 2. It is characteristic that all lenses have the same subjective spherical equivalent, and that the iso-line of the same spherical equivalent has different gradients in at least one of the intervals Mobj < M_A2 and Mobj > M_A2 - this is expressed by the relationships between the measured spherical equivalents of lenses A, B and C and those present at the reference point.

[0202] Figure 10 refers to lenses A, D, and E from the B8 lens series. Characteristic here is the identical slope of the iso-line of equal spherical equivalent on both sides of M_A2, which is expressed by the relationships between the measured and existing spherical equivalents of lenses A, D, and E at the reference point.

[0203] Figures 11 to 19show the difference (Mkomb - Msbj) between an estimated spherical equivalent (Mkomb) and a measured subjective spherical equivalent (Msbj) as a function of the difference between a measured objective spherical equivalent (Mobj) and a measured subjective spherical equivalent for different additions Add. "Mkomb" refers to the combined spherical equivalent, i.e., an estimated spherical equivalent calculated according to an exemplary method comprising steps 1 and / or 2. On the x-axis, the difference of the objective spherical equivalent Mobj (e.g. M_B2 or M_C2) for a spectacle lens (e.g. a spectacle lens B or C) minus the objective spherical equivalent Mobj=Msbj, where the combined spherical equivalent is equal to the subjective spherical equivalent (e.g. M_B2 - M_A2 or MC_2 - M_A2). Figures 11 to 19 refer to additions that occur at the standard object distance of 40cm (equivalent to A 1 N = − 2 , 5 Dpt) were determined.

[0204] The solid and dashed lines indicate the cases in which the combined spherical equivalent Mkomb was obtained according to an exemplary method comprising step 2 with support points and weights from example 1 (solid) or example 2 (dashed). The combined spherical equivalent "Mkomb" thus represents the estimated refractive error according to an exemplary method comprising step 2 or steps 1 and 2.

Claims

1. Series of sets comprising spectacle lenses with associated specifications , wherein the series comprises: a first spectacle lens A for correcting a first refractive error of an eye of a spectacle wearer and a specification of the first refractive error, wherein the spectacle lens A has a first effect P_A at a reference point of the spectacle lens, the first refractive error is corrected by at least a first a first measurement value P_A1 obtained by means of a measuring device of the first type for measuring the refractive error and consisting of several components, and at least one second measurement value P_A2 obtained by means of a measuring device of the second type for measuring the refractive error and consisting of several components, wherein the first measurement value P_A1 and the second measurement value P_A2 optionally differ in at least one component X; a second spectacle lens B for correcting a second refractive error of an eye of a spectacle wearer and a specification of the second refractive error, wherein the spectacle lens B has a second effect P_B at a reference point designated identically to the first spectacle lens, wherein the second refractive error is characterized by at least one first measured value P_B1 obtained by means of the measuring device of the first type and consisting of several components, and at least one second measured value P_B2 obtained by means of the measuring device of the second type and consisting of several components, wherein optionally the first measured value P_B1 and the second measured value P_B2 differ in at least one component X; at least a third spectacle lens C for correcting a third refractive error of an eye of a spectacle wearer and a specification of the third refractive error, wherein the spectacle lens C has a third effect P_C at a reference point designated identically to the first spectacle lens, and wherein the third refractive error is characterized by at least a first measured value P_C1 obtained by means of the measuring device of the first type and consisting of several components, and at least a second measured value P_C2 obtained by means of the measuring device of the second type and consisting of several components, wherein optionally the first measured value P_C1 and the second measured value P_C2 differ in at least one component X ( ); wherein: the first measured values P_A1, P_B1, and P_C1 determined with the measuring device of the first type are identical component by component, the components X of the second measured values P_A2, P_B2, and P_C2 determined with the second measuring devices of the second type all differ in pairs, the component X of the first effect P_A and the component X of the first measured value P_A1 are essentially identical, and where the following relationships apply to the components X of the effect of the i-th spectacle lens present at the reference point, X_i, where i = A, B or C, and to the components X of the second measured values of the i-th visual impairment, X_i2: X_B − X_A / X_B 2 − X_A 2 is not equal to X_C − X_A / X_C 2 − X_A 2 ; abs X_B 2 − X_A 2 < abs X_C 2 − X_A 2 ; and signum X_B 2 − X_A 2 = signum X_C 2 − X_A 2 , and where the lenses A, B, and C are single vision lenses or progressive lenses with the same additions.

2. . Series of sets according to claim 1, wherein the first, second and third spectacle lenses are single vision lenses or progressive lenses with the same addition Add, where Add <= 1.5 Dpt, and where the following relationships apply to the components X of the effect of the i-th spectacle lens at the reference point, X_i, and to the components X of the second measured values of the i-th refractive errors, X_i2: X_B − X_A / X_B 2 − X_A 2 < X_C − X_A / X_C 2 − X_A 2 if X_B 2 − X_A 2 > 0 , X_C 2 − X_A 2 > 0 , and X_B − X_A / X_B 2 − X_A 2 > X_C − X_A / X_C 2 − X_A 2 if X_B 2 − X_A 2 < 0 , X_C 2 − X_A 2 < 0 .

3. . Series of sets according to claim 1, wherein the first, second, and third lenses are progressive lenses having the same addition Add, where Add ≥ 2 Dpt, and where for the components X of the effect of the i-th spectacle lens present at the reference point ( ), X_i , and for the components X of the second measured values of the i-th refractive error, X_i2, the following relationships apply: X_B − X_A / X_B 2 − X_A 2 > X_C − X_A / X_C 2 − X_A 2 if X_B 2 − X_A 2 > 0 , X_C 2 − X_A 2 > 0 , and X_B − X_A / X_B 2 − X_A 2 > X_C − X_A / X_C 2 − X_A 2 if X_B 2 − X_A 2 < 0 , X_C 2 − X_A 2 < 0 .

4. . Series of sets according to one of the preceding claims, wherein the measuring device of the first type is a measuring device for measuring subjective refraction; and / or the measuring device of the second type is a measuring device for measuring objective refraction.

5. . Series of sets according to one of the preceding claims, further comprising at least one fourth spectacle lens D for correcting a fourth refractive error of an eye of a spectacle wearer and a specification of the fourth refractive error, wherein the spectacle lens D has a fourth effect P_D at least at a reference point designated identically to the first spectacle lens, wherein the fourth refractive error is characterized by at least a first measured value P_D1 obtained by means of the measuring device of the first type and consisting of several components, and at least a second measured value P_D2 obtained by means of the measuring device of the second type and consisting of several components, wherein optionally the first measured value P_D1 and the second measured value P_D2 differ in at least one component X; at least one fifth spectacle lens E for correcting a fifth refractive error of an eye of a spectacle wearer and a specification of the fifth refractive error, wherein the spectacle lens E has a fourth effect P_E at least at a reference point designated identically to the first spectacle lens, wherein the fifth refractive error is characterized by at least a first measured value P_E1 obtained by means of the measuring device of the first type and consisting of several components, and at least a second measured value P_E2 obtained by means of the measuring device of the second type and consisting of several components, wherein optionally the first measured value P_E1 and the second measured value P_E2 differ in at least one component X; and wherein: P_A1, P_D1, and P_E1 of the first, fourth, and fifth refractive errors are identical component by component, the components X of the second measured values P_A2, P_D2 and P_E2 of the first, fourth and fifth refractive errors determined with the measuring devices of the second type all differ in pairs, the component X of the first effect P_A present at the reference point of the first lens and the component X of the first measured value of the first refractive error P_A1 are essentially identical, and the following relationships apply to the components X of the effect of the i-th spectacle lens present at the reference point, X_i, and to the components X of the second measured values of the i-th refractive error, X_i2: X_D 2 − X_A 2 > 0 , X_E 2 − X_A 2 < 0 , X_D − X_A > 0 and X_E − X_A < 0 .