Multi-lens system for presbyopia

Abstract

Described herein are systems and / or methods for designing a system of contact lenses with interocular refractive difference (irregular refractive index) for a presbyope. An exemplary method may include determining a plurality of lenses for inclusion in a system of contact lenses for treating a presbyope. Each of the plurality of lenses may be configured for optical correction and may have a power profile associated therewith. The plurality of lenses may be grouped based on the optical correction. Each of the lenses in a particular group may have a different power profile. An exemplary method may include creating a fit guide based on at least the plurality of lenses and the required add power. The fit guide may provide an interocular difference in effective add power. The interocular difference in effective add power may be determined by optimizing monocular performance over a range of accommodation demands and illumination levels.

Description

[Background technology]

[0001] Generally, multifocal or extended depth of focus (EDOF) lenses significantly reduce the effects of presbyopia, but they require a performance trade-off. Typically, peak distance visual acuity is sacrificed to achieve improved near vision performance. Despite the superior visual performance of some of the market-leading multifocal simultaneous vision lens systems (multifocal (MF)), simulations suggest that there are situations where performance should be improved across a given accommodation demand, especially at near. Summary of the Invention [Means for solving the problem]

[0002] The present lenses, lens systems, and methods offer a superior tradeoff in overall visual performance across a range of accommodation demands compared to MF. This can be achieved by enhancing the visual system's ability to accommodate interocular refractive differences, further increasing monocular depth of focus (DOF). Alternatively, or in addition, unlike MF, the designs utilize greater variation in design across larger add powers, stock keeping units (SKUs), where each SKU differentiates a different prescription (Rx), and a fit / refit prescription (e.g., fitting guide) optimized for the visual performance manifold.

[0003] Described herein are systems and / or methods for designing a system of contact lenses with refractive inequality for presbyopes. An exemplary method may include determining a plurality of lens types to include in a system of contact lenses for treating presbyopes. The lens system may include at least three lens types (designated Lens A, Lens B, and Lens C). The lens types may differ by effective add power or DOF, or both. Each of the plurality of lenses may be configured for optical correction and may have a power profile associated therewith. The plurality of lenses may be grouped based on optical correction. Each lens of a particular type may have a different power profile. The optical correction normalized power profile across the range of optical corrections for each of the lens designations may be modified to improve performance by considering [1] prescription (Rx), age, and adaptation dependence of ocular spherical aberration, and / or [2] luminance dependence of Rx, age, and entrance pupil diameter. Other combinations of performance factors may be used, and may include single individual factors. An exemplary method may include creating a fit guide that indicates which of the plurality of lenses should be worn in the dominant and non-dominant eyes based on at least the plurality of lenses and the required add power. The fit guide may provide an interocular difference in effective add power.

[0004] Described herein are systems and / or methods for designing a system of contact lenses with refractive inequality for a presbyope. An exemplary method may include determining a plurality of lenses for inclusion in a system of contact lenses for treating a presbyope. Each of the plurality of lenses may be configured for optical correction and may have a power profile associated therewith. The plurality of lenses may be grouped based on the optical correction. Each lens in a particular group may have a different power profile. The exemplary method may include creating a fit guide that indicates which of the plurality of lenses should be worn in the dominant and non-dominant eyes based on at least the plurality of lenses and the required add power. The fit guide may provide an interocular difference in effective add power.

[0005] Disclosed herein are methods and / or systems for contact lenses with refractive inequality for presbyopes. An exemplary system may include multiple lens types for treating presbyopes. The lens system may include at least three lens types (designated Lens A, Lens B, and Lens C). Each of the multiple lenses may be configured for optical correction and may have a power profile associated with it. The multiple lenses may be grouped based on the optical correction. Each lens of a particular type may have a different power profile. The optical correction normalized power profile across the range of optical corrections for each lens designation may be modified to improve performance by taking into account [1] prescription (Rx), age, and accommodation dependence of ocular spherical aberration, and [2] luminance dependence of Rx, age, and entrance pupil diameter. The exemplary system may include a fit guide that indicates which of the multiple lenses should be worn in the dominant and non-dominant eyes. The fit guide provides the interocular difference in effective add power.

[0006] Disclosed herein are systems and / or methods for customizing a system of contact lenses with refractive inequality for presbyopes. An exemplary method may include determining (e.g., selecting) a fit (e.g., a profile) associated with at least one user exhibiting presbyopia. The exemplary method may include selecting (e.g., simulating) one or more visual performance manifolds based on the fit. Each of the visual performance manifolds may be generated based on a lens design, an eye model, and environmental conditions. The exemplary method may include selecting, based on the one or more visual performance manifolds, a plurality of lenses for inclusion in a system of contact lenses for treating the presbyope or for modifying the lens fit when subjective feedback is given. Each of the plurality of lenses may be configured for optical correction and may have a power profile associated therewith. The plurality of lenses may be grouped based on the optical correction. Each of the lenses in a particular group may have a different power profile. The exemplary method may include creating a fit guide indicating which of the plurality of lenses should be worn in the dominant and non-dominant eyes based on at least the plurality of lenses and the required add power. The fit guide may provide an interocular difference in effective add power.

[0007] These lenses may be grouped based on optical correction, such that a lens group is associated with a specific optical correction level or designation, such as -20D to +20D. For example, a lens system may include lenses grouped based on an optical correction of -6D. However, a user's required add power may exist, and a fit guide may be used to select which lenses in the group / system should be placed in which eye of the user for preferred performance. Each lens group may include at least three central-near continuous multifocal lenses. Each lens group may include three lenses. Each lens group may include four lenses. Each lens group may include five lenses. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0008] The following drawings illustrate generally, by way of example, but not by way of limitation, various embodiments contemplated in the present disclosure. [Figure 1] 1 shows exemplary power profiles for three comparative lens systems. [Figure 2] 1 shows an exemplary graph of the visual performance of a comparative lens system for various prescriptions (Rx) and an add power of 0.75D. [Figure 3] 1 shows an exemplary graph of the visual performance of comparative lens systems for various prescriptions (Rx) and 1.00D add power. [Figure 4] 1 shows an exemplary graph of the visual performance of a comparative lens system for various prescriptions (Rx) and an add power of 1.25D. [Figure 5] 1 shows an exemplary graph of the visual performance of comparative lens systems of various prescriptions (Rx) and for an add power of 1.50D. [Figure 6] 1 shows an exemplary graph of the visual performance of comparative lens systems of various prescriptions (Rx) and for an add power of 1.75D. [Figure 7] 1 shows an exemplary graph of the visual performance of comparative lens systems of various prescriptions (Rx) and for an add power of 2.00D. [Figure 8] 1 shows an exemplary graph of the visual performance of comparative lens systems of various prescriptions (Rx) and for an add power of 2.25D. [Figure 9] 1 shows an exemplary graph of the visual performance of comparative lens systems of various prescriptions (Rx) and for an add power of 2.50D. [Figure 10] 1 shows an exemplary power profile and fit guide for a lens system according to the present disclosure. [Figure 11] 1 shows an exemplary graph of the visual performance of a lens system according to the present disclosure for various prescriptions (Rx) and an add power of 0.75D. [Figure 12] 1 shows an exemplary graph of the visual performance of a lens system according to the present disclosure for various prescriptions (Rx) and an add power of 1.00D. [Figure 13] 1 shows an exemplary graph of the visual performance of a lens system according to the present disclosure for various prescriptions (Rx) and 1.25D add power. [Figure 14] 1 shows an exemplary graph of the visual performance of a lens system according to the present disclosure for various prescriptions (Rx) and an add power of 1.50D. [Figure 15] 1 shows an exemplary graph of the visual performance of a lens system according to the present disclosure for various prescriptions (Rx) and an add power of 1.75D. [Figure 16] 1 shows an exemplary graph of the visual performance of a lens system according to the present disclosure for various prescriptions (Rx) and 2.0D add power. [Figure 17] 1 shows an exemplary graph of the visual performance of a lens system according to the present disclosure for various prescriptions (Rx) and an add power of 2.25D. [Figure 18] 1 shows an exemplary graph of the visual performance of a lens system according to the present disclosure for various prescriptions (Rx) and 2.5D add power. [Figure 19] 1 shows a plot of visual performance (viewing distance) as a function of vergence to illustrate depth of focus (DOF) and effective add power (E.Add). [Figure 20] 1 shows a plot of the LoP visual acuity for the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 for the dominant eye at low luminance (luminance=2 cd / m2) across a range of add powers. [Figure 21] 1 shows a plot of peak visual acuity for the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 for the non-dominant eye at low luminance (luminance=2 cd / m 2 ) across a range of add powers. [Figure 22] 1 shows a plot of the depth of focus of the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 for the dominant eye at low luminance (luminance=2 cd / m2) across various add powers. [Figure 23]1 shows a plot of depth of focus for the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 for the non-dominant eye at low luminance (luminance=2 cd / m2) across a range of add powers. [Figure 24] 10 shows a plot of peak position visual acuity for a lens system according to the present disclosure for the dominant eye at low luminance (luminance=2 cd / m2) across various add powers, an example of which is shown in FIG. [Figure 25] 10 shows a plot of peak position visual acuity for a lens system according to the present disclosure for the non-dominant eye at low luminance (luminance=2 cd / m2) across various add powers, an example of which is shown in FIG. [Figure 26] 10 shows a plot of depth of focus for a lens system according to the present disclosure, with examples shown in FIG. 10 for the dominant eye at low luminance (luminance=2 cd / m2) across various add powers. [Figure 27] 10 shows a plot of depth of focus for a lens system according to the present disclosure, with examples shown in FIG. 10 for the non-dominant eye at low luminance (luminance=2 cd / m2) across various add powers. [Figure 28] 1 shows a comparative plot of the difference in peak visual acuity between the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 and a lens system according to the present disclosure, with examples for the dominant eye at low luminance (luminance=2 cd / m2) across various add powers shown in FIG. 10. The dashed line is a reference representing zero difference, with values below the line indicating greater effective add power for a prior art lens such as that shown in FIG. 1 and values above the line indicating greater effective add power for a lens according to the present disclosure, such as that shown in FIG. 10. [Figure 29] 1 shows a comparative plot of the difference in peak visual acuity between the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 and a lens system according to the present disclosure, with examples for the non-dominant eye at low luminance (luminance=2 cd / m2) across various add powers shown in FIG. 10. The dashed line is a reference representing zero difference, with values below the line indicating greater effective add power for the comparative lens as shown in FIG. 1 and values above the line indicating greater effective add power for a lens according to the present disclosure, such as that shown in FIG. 10. [Figure 30]1 shows a comparative plot of the difference in depth of focus between the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 and a lens system according to the present disclosure, with examples for the dominant eye at low luminance (luminance=2 cd / m2) across various add powers shown in FIG. 10. The dashed line is a reference representing zero difference, with values below the line indicating greater DOF for a prior art lens such as that shown in FIG. 1 and values above the line indicating greater effective add power for a lens according to the present disclosure, such as that shown in FIG. 10. [Figure 31] 1 shows a comparative plot of the difference in depth of focus between the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 and a lens system according to the present disclosure, with examples for the non-dominant eye at low luminance (luminance=2 cd / m2) across various add powers shown in FIG. 10. The dashed line is a reference representing zero difference, with values below the line indicating greater DOF for a prior art lens such as that shown in FIG. 1 and values above the line indicating greater effective add power for a lens according to the present disclosure, such as that shown in FIG. 10. [Figure 32] 1 shows a comparative plot of the difference in peak visual acuity between the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 and a lens system according to the present disclosure, with examples for the dominant eye at medium luminance (luminance=20 cd / m2) across various add powers shown in FIG. 10. The dashed line is a reference representing zero difference, with values below the line indicating greater effective add power for a prior art lens such as that shown in FIG. 1 and values above the line indicating greater effective add power for a lens according to the present disclosure, such as that shown in FIG. 10. [Figure 33] 1 shows a comparative plot of the difference in peak visual acuity between the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 and a lens system according to the present disclosure, with examples for the non-dominant eye at medium luminance (luminance=20 cd / m2) across various add powers shown in FIG. 10. The dashed line is a reference representing zero difference, with values below the line indicating greater effective add power for a prior art lens such as that shown in FIG. 1 and values above the line indicating greater effective add power for a lens according to the present disclosure, such as that shown in FIG. 10. [Figure 34]1 shows a comparative plot of the difference in depth of focus between the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 and a lens system according to the present disclosure, with examples for the dominant eye at medium luminance (luminance=20 cd / m2) across various add powers shown in FIG. 10. The dashed line is a reference representing zero difference, with values below the line indicating greater DOF for a prior art lens such as that shown in FIG. 1 and values above the line indicating greater effective add power for a lens according to the present disclosure, such as that shown in FIG. 10. [Figure 35] 1 shows a comparative plot of the difference in depth of focus between the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 and a lens system according to the present disclosure, with examples for the non-dominant eye at medium luminance (luminance=20 cd / m2) across various add powers shown in FIG. 10. The dashed line is a reference representing zero difference, with values below the line indicating greater DOF for a prior art lens such as that shown in FIG. 1 and values above the line indicating greater effective add power for a lens according to the present disclosure, such as that shown in FIG. 10. [Figure 36] 1 shows a comparative plot of the difference in peak visual acuity between the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 and a lens system according to the present disclosure, with examples for the dominant eye at high luminance (luminance=400 cd / m2) across various add powers shown in FIG. 10. The dashed line is a reference representing zero difference, with values below the line indicating greater effective add power for a prior art lens such as that shown in FIG. 1 and values above the line indicating greater effective add power for a lens according to the present disclosure, such as that shown in FIG. 10. [Figure 37] 1 shows a comparative plot of the difference in peak visual acuity between the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 and a lens system according to the present disclosure, with examples for the non-dominant eye at high luminance (luminance=400 cd / m2) across various add powers shown in FIG. 10. The dashed line is a reference representing zero difference, with values below the line indicating greater effective add power for a prior art lens such as that shown in FIG. 1 and values above the line indicating greater effective add power for a lens according to the present disclosure, such as that shown in FIG. 10. [Figure 38]1 shows a comparative plot of the difference in depth of focus between the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 and a lens system according to the present disclosure, with an example for the dominant eye at high luminance (luminance=400 cd / m2) across various add powers shown in FIG. 10. The dashed line is a reference representing zero difference, with values below the line indicating greater DOF for a prior art lens such as that shown in FIG. 1 and values above the line indicating greater effective add power for a lens according to the present disclosure, such as that shown in FIG. 10. [Figure 39] 1 shows a comparative plot of the difference in depth of focus between the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 and a lens system according to the present disclosure, with examples for the non-dominant eye at high luminance (luminance=400 cd / m2) across various add powers shown in FIG. 10. The dashed line is a reference representing zero difference, with values below the line indicating greater DOF for a prior art lens such as that shown in FIG. 1 and values above the line indicating greater effective add power for a lens according to the present disclosure, such as that shown in FIG. 10. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0009] Described herein are systems and / or methods for customizing a system of contact lenses with binocular disparity for presbyopic individuals. An exemplary method may include selecting a fit associated with at least one user exhibiting presbyopia. Determining the fit may include optimizing a treatment plan for the particular user. Optimization may include using one or more visual performance manifolds, as shown and described herein.

[0010] Described herein are systems and / or methods for designing and implementing a system of contact lenses with binocular disparity for presbyopes. An exemplary system may include multiple lens types for treating presbyopes. The lens system may include at least three lens types (designated Lens A, Lens B, and Lens C). The lens types may differ by one or more of effective add power or DOF. Each of the multiple lenses may be configured for optical correction and may have a power profile associated therewith. The multiple lenses may be grouped based on optical correction. Each lens of a particular type may have a different power profile. The optical correction normalized power profile across the range of optical corrections for each lens designation may be modified to improve performance by taking into account [1] the prescription (Rx), age, and accommodation dependence of ocular spherical aberration, and [2] the luminance dependence of Rx, age, and entrance pupil diameter.

[0011] This exemplary method may include determining a fit associated with at least one user exhibiting presbyopia. The method may include simulating one or more visual performance manifolds based on a fit profile, each visual performance manifold being generated based on a lens design, an eye model, and environmental conditions. The method may include selecting, based on the selected one or more visual performance manifolds, a plurality of lenses for inclusion in a contact lens system for treating the presbyopic person or for modifying the lens fit if visual performance is achieved, each of the plurality of lenses configured for optical correction and having a power profile associated therewith, and the plurality of lenses being grouped based on the optical correction, each lens in a particular group having a different power profile. The method may also include creating a fit guide based on at least the plurality of lenses and required add powers, the fit guide indicating which of the plurality of lenses should be worn for the dominant and non-dominant eyes, the fit guide providing an interocular disparity of the effective add power.

[0012] An exemplary method may include determining a plurality of lens types for inclusion in a system of contact lenses for treating presbyopes. The lens system may include at least three lens types (designated Lens A, Lens B, and Lens C). Other groupings and numbers of lens types may be used. Each of the plurality of lenses may be configured for optical correction and may have a power profile associated therewith. The plurality of lenses may be grouped based on optical correction. Each lens group may include at least three central-near continuous multifocal lenses. Each lens group may include three lenses. Each lens group may include four lenses. Each lens group may include five lenses. The power profile may range from -20D to +20D. Determining the plurality of lens groups may include determining a visual performance manifold for one or more of the lenses in the plurality of lens groups.

[0013] Each specific type of lens may have a different power profile. However, the optical correction normalized power profile across the range of optical corrections for each lens designation can be modified to improve performance by taking into account prescription (Rx), ocular spherical aberration and adaptation dependence of Rx, age, and luminance dependence of entrance pupil diameter. In other words, the variation in normalized power profile across SKUs (e.g., optical correction levels) can be increased compared to the variation in conventional lenses or lens systems. The disclosed lens systems and methods enable superior tradeoffs in overall through-focus visual performance relative to conventional lenses and lens systems. As an illustrative example, such performance improvement can be achieved by enhancing the visual system's ability to accommodate interocular refractive disparity, further increasing monocular depth of focus (DOF). Additionally or alternatively, the disclosed lens designs utilize higher add powers, greater design variation across SKUs, and visual performance manifold-optimized fit / refit prescriptions compared to conventional lenses or lens systems.

[0014] A fit guide may be created and / or used. The fit guide may be created based on at least a plurality of lens and add power needs. The fit guide may be customized for a user or group of users. Various fit guides may be created and compared for optimal performance for a user. The fit guide may indicate which lenses of a plurality of lenses should be worn in the dominant and non-dominant eyes. Exemplary fit guides may include one or more of the following exemplary fit guides: While designations for particular fit guide applications are shown, this is for illustrative purposes and therefore should not necessarily be limiting.

[0015] Initial lens selection:

[0016] [Table 1]

[0017] Lens change if required due to distance complaints:

[0018] [Table 2]

[0019] Lens change if required due to near complaints:

[0020] [Table 3]

[0021] Lens change if required due to second distance complaint:

[0022] [Table 4]

[0023] Lens change if required due to second near complaint:

[0024] [Table 5]

[0025] The fit guide can provide interocular disparity of effective add power. Figure 19 shows a plot of visual performance as a function of vergence (viewing distance). Effective add power can be defined as the shift between 0 vergence (distance visual acuity) and peak performance vergence. Disparity of effective add power is the difference in effective add power between the dominant and non-dominant eyes.

[0026] The DOF is a three-line drop from peak performance. The plot in FIG. 19 can be illustrative in describing each lens and the resulting disparity. Such disparity in the present disclosure can differ from 0, which is the difference in fit guides for conventional lenses, such as MF at low and medium add power requirements. Other fit guides may be used. Optimization may be based on the use of additional fit guides for distance and / or near adjustments, or on patient-reported performance. While various techniques may be used, fit optimization may be performed by the physician using patient feedback. Alternative fit guides may be determined using the visual performance manifold to obtain an alternative that provides the best visual performance for a particular patient complaint.

[0027] For comparison, the table below shows the effective add powers of a conventional MF lens system and a lens system according to the present disclosure.

[0028] Effective Addition Power Table [Table 6]

[0029] [Table 7]

[0030] [Table 8]

[0031] [Table 9]

[0032] 28-39 show a comparison of effective add power and DOF between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure.

[0033] As a further example, the fit guide may be based on one or more visual performance manifolds, and thus the fit guide may be customized for a user or group of users based on comparisons that test or optimize the visual performance manifolds for the users.

[0034] As an illustrative example, the lens design optimization procedure may be based on visual performance. The monocular visual performance metric is given by:

[0035]

number

[0036] Binocular visual performance is obtained using the following vector model:

[0037]

number

[0038] Optimization of visual performance is obtained over a range of eye models (spanning ages and add needs typical of the presbyopic population) by minimizing:

[0039]

number

[0040] Figure 20 shows the low luminance (luminance = 2 cd / m) across various add powers. 2 ) for the dominant eye. Figure 22 shows a plot of peak visual acuity for the comparative lens system of Figure 1 at low luminance (luminance = 2 cd / m) across various add powers. 2 24 shows a plot of the depth of focus of the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 for the dominant eye at low luminance (luminance=2 cd / m) across various add powers. 2 ) for the dominant eye is shown in FIG. 10. FIG. 26 shows a plot of the depth of focus of a lens system according to the present disclosure at low luminance (luminance=2 cd / m) across various add powers. 2 An example for the dominant eye at low illumination is shown in FIG. 10. In low illumination conditions, MF uses more effective add power in the dominant eye, and the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses a larger DOF for medium and high add powers.

[0041] Figure 21 shows the low luminance (luminance = 2 cd / m) across various add powers. 2 ) for the non-dominant eye. Figure 23 shows a plot of the peak visual acuity for the comparative lens system of Figure 1 at low luminance (luminance = 2 cd / m) across various add powers. 2 25 shows a plot of the depth of focus of the comparative lens system of FIG. 1 for the non-dominant eye at low luminance (luminance=2 cd / m) across various add powers. 2) for the non-dominant eye is shown in FIG. 10. FIG. 27 shows a plot of the depth of focus of a lens system according to the present disclosure at low luminance (luminance=2 cd / m) across various add powers. 2 ) is shown in FIG. 10. In low light conditions, MF uses more effective add power in the non-dominant eye for low add powers, while the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses more effective add power at medium and high add powers. The exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses more DOF at low and medium add powers, and MF uses more DOF in myopes with high add powers, while the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses more DOF in hyperopes with high add powers.

[0042] Figure 28 shows a comparison of the effective add power for various add powers for the dominant eye in low-light conditions between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure. Figure 30 shows a comparison of the DOF for various add powers for the dominant eye in low-light conditions between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure. In low-light conditions, MF uses a larger add power for the dominant eye, and the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses a larger DOF for medium and high add powers.

[0043] Figure 29 shows a comparison of effective add power for various add powers for the non-dominant eye in low-light conditions between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure. Figure 31 shows a comparison of DOF for various add powers for the dominant eye in low-light conditions between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure. In low-light conditions, the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses a larger effective add power in the non-dominant eye for medium and high add powers. The exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses a larger DOF for low and medium add powers, and MF uses a larger DOF for myopes with high add powers, while the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses a larger DOF for hyperopes with high add powers.

[0044] Figure 32 shows a comparison of effective add power for various add powers of the dominant eye in medium-brightness illumination conditions between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure. Figure 34 shows a comparison of DOF for various add powers of the dominant eye in medium-brightness illumination conditions between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure. In medium-brightness illumination conditions, MF uses a larger effective add power in the dominant eye.

[0045] Figure 33 shows a comparison of effective add power for various add powers for the non-dominant eye in medium illumination conditions between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure. Figure 35 shows a comparison of DOF for various add powers for the dominant eye in medium illumination conditions between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure. In medium illumination conditions, the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses a larger effective add power in the non-dominant eye and a larger DOF at low and medium add powers.

[0046] Figure 36 shows a comparison of effective add power for various add powers of the dominant eye in bright illumination conditions between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure. Figure 38 shows a comparison of DOF for various add powers of the dominant eye in bright illumination conditions between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure. In bright illumination conditions, MF uses a larger effective add power in the dominant eye.

[0047] Figure 37 shows a comparison of the effective add power for various add powers for the non-dominant eye in bright illumination conditions between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure. Figure 39 shows a comparison of the DOF for various add powers for the non-dominant eye in bright illumination conditions between a conventional lens / lens system (MF) and a lens system according to the present disclosure. In bright illumination conditions, the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses a larger effective add power for the non-dominant eye at low and medium add powers.

[0048] As shown, the simulations suggest that the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure provides comparable or superior distance and near performance, sacrificing slightly intermediate performance at low illumination levels compared to the MF system. In general, the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure uses a larger effective add power and provides a larger DOF in the non-dominant eye, while the MF system uses a larger effective add power and the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure provides a larger DOF in the dominant eye. However, in high-light conditions where the pupil becomes smaller, the DOF of monoculars with both designs is comparable. While the increased DOF of the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure can be significant in low-light conditions, the primary difference between the two systems (from low to high illumination levels) is due to the difference in effective add power. Thus, the exemplary lens system of the present disclosure improves through-focus monocular visual performance by optimally expanding the visual system's tolerance for interocular differences in effective add power. [Example]

[0049] Power Profile and Visual Performance Manifold For each simulated design, the power profile of each lens in the lens system is plotted for refractive errors of -9, -6, -3, 2, 4, and 6D to present a visual performance manifold. A fit guide is presented in tabular form for each design. The fit guide includes information about the lens design and the fit for both the dominant and non-dominant eye. The fit is the difference between the power label of the fitted lens and the subject's refractive power. Visual performance is gray-level coded in units of -10 logMAR, from -2 to 0.5. Values above 0.5 saturate and remain dark gray, while values below -2 saturate and appear white.

[0050] [Table 10]

[0051] [Table 11]

[0052] FIG. 10 shows the power profiles of three lens designs of an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure.

[0053] FIG. 11 is a visual performance manifold for an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure for a required add power of 0.75D.

[0054] FIG. 12 is a visual performance manifold of an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure for a required 1D add power.

[0055] FIG. 13 is a visual performance manifold for an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure for a required add power of 1.25D.

[0056] FIG. 14 is a visual performance manifold of an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure for a required add power of 1.5D.

[0057] FIG. 15 is a visual performance manifold for an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure for a required add power of 1.75D.

[0058] FIG. 16 is a visual performance manifold of an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure versus 2D add power requirement.

[0059] FIG. 17 is a visual performance manifold for an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure for a required add power of 2.25D.

[0060] FIG. 18 is a visual performance manifold of an exemplary lens system of the present disclosure for a required add power of 2.5D.

[0061] While the embodiments shown and described herein are considered to be the most practical and preferred embodiments, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that variations from the specific designs and methods shown and disclosed herein will themselves be obvious to those skilled in the art and can be used without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. The present disclosure is not limited to the particular constructions described and exemplified, but should be constructed to be consistent with all modifications that may fall within the scope of the appended claims.

[0062] [Embodiment] (1) A method for designing a contact lens system having interocular refractive differences for presbyopic patients, comprising: determining a plurality of lens types for inclusion in a system of contact lenses for treating a presbyopic individual, the lens system including at least three lens types (designated Lens A, Lens B, and Lens C); each of the plurality of lenses configured for optical correction and having a power profile associated therewith; the plurality of lenses are grouped based on the optical correction, each of the lenses of a particular type having a different power profile; determining an optical correction normalized power profile across a range of optical corrections for each of said lens designations that is modified to improve performance based on at least [1] prescription (Rx), age, and accommodation dependence of ocular spherical aberration, or [2] luminance dependence of Rx, age, and entrance pupil diameter; and creating a fit guide that indicates which of the plurality of lenses should be worn in the dominant and non-dominant eyes based on at least the plurality of lenses and required add power, the fit guide providing an interocular difference in effective add power. (2) The method of claim 1, wherein each lens group includes at least three central near continuous multifocal lenses. (3) The method of claim 1, wherein each group of lenses includes three lenses. (4) The method of claim 1, wherein each group of lenses includes four lenses. (5) The method of claim 1, wherein each group of lenses includes five lenses.

[0063] (6) The method of embodiment 1, wherein the optical correction is −20D to +20D. (7) The method of embodiment 1, wherein determining a plurality of lens groups includes determining a visual performance manifold for one or more of the lenses in the plurality of lens groups. (8) The method of claim 1, wherein the fit guide includes one or more of the following: [Table 12] [Table 13] [Table 14] [Table 15] [Table 16] [Table 17] (9) A system of contact lenses with interocular difference for presbyopic people, comprising: a plurality of lens types for treating presbyopia, the lens system including at least three lens types (designated Lens A, Lens B, and Lens C); each of the plurality of lenses configured for optical correction and having a power profile associated therewith; the plurality of lenses are grouped based on the optical correction, each of the lenses of a particular type having a different power profile; A plurality of lens types, wherein an optical correction normalized power profile across a range of optical corrections for each of said lens designations is modified to improve performance based on at least [1] prescription (Rx), age, and accommodation dependency of ocular spherical aberration, and [2] luminance dependency of Rx, age, and entrance pupil diameter; a fit guide that indicates which of the plurality of lenses should be worn in the dominant and non-dominant eyes, the fit guide providing an interocular difference in effective add power. (10) The system described in embodiment 9, wherein each lens group includes at least three central near continuous multifocal lenses.

[0064] (11) The system of embodiment 9, wherein each group of lenses includes three lenses. (12) The system of embodiment 9, wherein each group of lenses includes four lenses. (13) The system of embodiment 9, wherein each group of lenses includes five lenses. (14) The system described in embodiment 9, wherein the power profile is -20D to +20D. (15) The system of embodiment 9, wherein the fit guide depends on a visual performance manifold for one or more of the lenses in the plurality of lens groups.

[0065] (16) The method of claim 9, wherein the fit guide includes one or more of the following: [Table 18] [Table 19] [Table 20] [Table 21] [Table 22] [Table 23] (17) A method for designing a contact lens system having interocular refractive difference for a presbyopic person, comprising: determining a plurality of lenses for inclusion in a system of contact lenses for treating a presbyope, each of the plurality of lenses configured for an optical correction and having a power profile associated therewith, the plurality of lenses being grouped based on the optical correction, each of the lenses in a particular group having a different power profile; and creating a fit guide that indicates which of the plurality of lenses should be worn in the dominant and non-dominant eyes based on at least the plurality of lenses and required add power, the fit guide providing an interocular difference in effective add power. (18) The method of claim 17, wherein each group of lenses includes three lenses. (19) The method of claim 17, wherein each group of lenses includes four lenses. (20) The method of claim 17, wherein each group of lenses includes five lenses.

[0066] (21) The method described in embodiment 17, wherein the power profile is -20D to +20D. (22) The method of embodiment 17, wherein determining a plurality of lenses includes determining a visual performance manifold for one or more of the lenses. (23) The method of claim 17, wherein the fit guide includes one or more of the following: [Table 24] [Table 25] [Table 26] [Table 27] [Table 28] [Table 29] (24) A method for customizing a system of contact lenses having interocular refractive differences for presbyopic patients, comprising: determining a fit associated with at least one user exhibiting presbyopia; simulating one or more visual performance manifolds based on the fit, each of the visual performance manifolds being generated based on a lens design, an eye model, and environmental conditions; selecting a plurality of lenses for inclusion in a system of contact lenses for treating presbyopia based on the simulated one or more visual performance manifolds, each of the plurality of lenses configured for an optical correction and having a power profile associated therewith, the plurality of lenses being grouped based on the optical correction, each of the lenses in a particular group having a different power profile; and creating a fit guide that indicates which of the plurality of lenses should be worn in the dominant and non-dominant eyes based on at least the plurality of lenses and required add power, the fit guide providing an interocular difference in effective add power. (25) The method of claim 24, wherein each group of lenses includes three lenses.

[0067] (26) The method of claim 24, wherein each group of lenses includes four lenses. (27) The method of claim 24, wherein each group of lenses includes five lenses. (28) The method described in embodiment 24, wherein the optical power is -20D to +20D. (29) The method of embodiment 24, wherein the step of determining a fit profile includes optimizing a treatment plan for the particular user. (30) The method of embodiment 29, wherein the optimizing includes using one or more visual performance manifolds.

[0068] (31) The method of claim 24, wherein the fit guide includes one or more of the following: [Table 30] [Table 31] [Table 32] [Table 33] [Table 34] [Table 35]

Claims

1. 1. A method for designing a system of contact lenses having interocular refractive differences for a presbyope, comprising: determining a plurality of lens types for inclusion in the system of contact lenses for treating a presbyopic individual, the system including at least three lens types (designated Lens A, Lens B, and Lens C); each of the plurality of lens types configured for optical correction and having a power profile associated therewith; the plurality of lens types are grouped based on the optical correction, each of the plurality of lens types of a particular type having a different power profile; the different power profiles across the range of optical correction for each of the designations are measured using a metric of Equation 1 to improve optical correction performance based on at least [1] prescription (Rx), age, and ocular spherical aberration, or [2] luminance dependence of Rx, age, and entrance pupil diameter; [Equation 1] where MTF is the modulation transfer function of the lens-eye combination, NCSF is the neural contrast sensitivity function for a given pupil size and luminance, v is the spatial frequency, Using the monocular visual performance, obtain binocular visual performance using the vector model of Equation 2; [Equation 2] where the subscripts dom and non refer to the dominant and non-dominant eyes, respectively, and α is a constant; optimizing visual performance by minimizing the value of the evaluation formula shown in Equation 3 obtained over a range of eye models spanning ages and add power needs typical of a presbyopic population; [Equation 3] In the formula, ψ ｉｄｅａｌ is a target value obtained using diffraction-limited binocular vision performance; and creating a fit guide that indicates which of the plurality of lens types should be worn for the dominant and non-dominant eyes based on at least the plurality of lens types and the required add power, the fit guide providing an interocular difference in effective add power.

2. The method of claim 1 , wherein each group of the plurality of lens types includes at least three central near continuous multifocal lenses.

3. The method of claim 1 , wherein each group of the plurality of lens types includes three lenses.

4. The method of claim 1 , wherein each group of the plurality of lens types includes four lenses.

5. The method of claim 1 , wherein each group of the plurality of lens types includes five lenses.

6. The method of claim 1 , wherein the optical correction is between −20D and +20D.

7. The method of claim 1 , wherein the fit guide includes one or more of the following: 【Table 1】 【Table 2】 【Table 3】 【Table 4】 【Table 5】

8. 1. A method for designing a system of contact lenses having interocular refractive differences for a presbyope, comprising: determining a plurality of lenses for inclusion in the system of contact lenses for treating a presbyope, each of the plurality of lenses configured for an optical correction and having a power profile associated therewith, the plurality of lenses being grouped based on the optical correction, each of the plurality of lenses in a particular group having a different power profile; and measuring monocular visual performance using a metric of Equation 4; [Equation 4] where MTF is the modulation transfer function of the lens-eye combination, NCSF is the neural contrast sensitivity function for a given pupil size and luminance, v is the spatial frequency, Using the monocular visual performance, obtain the binocular visual performance using the vector model of Equation 5; [Equation 5] where the subscripts dom and non refer to the dominant and non-dominant eyes, respectively, and α is a constant; optimizing visual performance by minimizing the value of the evaluation formula shown in Equation 6 obtained over a range of eye models spanning ages and add power needs typical of a presbyopic population; [Equation 6] In the formula, ψ ｉｄｅａｌ is a target value obtained using diffraction-limited binocular vision performance; and creating a fit guide that indicates which of the plurality of lenses should be worn in the dominant and non-dominant eyes based on at least the plurality of lenses and required add power, the fit guide providing an interocular difference in effective add power.

9. The method of claim 8 , wherein each group of the plurality of lenses includes three lenses.

10. The method of claim 8 , wherein each group of the plurality of lenses includes four lenses.

11. The method of claim 8 , wherein each group of the plurality of lenses includes five lenses.

12. The method of claim 8, wherein the power profile is from -20D to +20D.

13. The method of claim 8 , wherein the fit guide includes one or more of the following: 【Table 6】 【Table 7】 【Table 8】 【Table 9】 【Table 10】

Images