Purpose: To quantify the amount of myopic defocus, contrast modulation and other optical characteristics of two novel spectacle lenses (MiYOSMART by Hoya and Stellest by Essilor) with the inclusion of lenslets in their designs were investigated computationally and experimentally. This paper examined the hypothesis that despite the non‐coaxial nature of the optics, image degradation will exist due to the fragmented nature of the base optic when imaging through the lens regions populated by lenslets. Methods: Optical power was evaluated by computing wavefront vergence and curvature from wavefront slope measured with the Optocraft aberrometer within 1.0 and 6.0 mm apertures across MiYOSMART hexagons and Stellest rings. Point‐spread functions (PSFs) were computed using physical (wave) optics and geometrical ray optics principles, and compared with experimental measurements using a 4f optical system. Simulated retinal images and modulation transfer functions (MTFs) were computed from PSF‐derived optical transfer functions (OTFs). Results: Mean lenslet power in MiYOSMART was +3.95 ± 0.10 D through the hexagons and +6.00 ± 0.15 D in Stellest in rings 1–5 and decreased by 0.42 D/ring reaching 3.50 D in the final one. Stellest lenslets included up to −0.015 microns of primary spherical aberration. PSFs and retinal images revealed simultaneous contributions of the base optic and lenslets. MTFs showed a decrease in contrast at low (1–10 c/deg) spatial frequencies (SFs) comparable to 0.25 D of defocus, and retention of diminished levels of contrast at higher SFs. Conclusions: Varying sagittal power and consistent curvature power across the lenslets is an identifying signature of the novel non‐coaxial lens design included in both spectacle lenses. Lenslet array structure itself plays a significant role in determining image characteristics. For both lenses, the blur created by the fragmented base optic contributes to the image quality. The reduced MTFs over a wide range of spatial frequencies result in lowered image contrast.

Specially developed software (app) was written for handheld electronic devices that uses the device camera and light detector for real-time monitoring of near-work distance and environmental lighting. A pilot study of this novel app employed children using tablet computers in a classroom. Measurements of face-device distance and face illuminance were obtained from two schools where tablets were used regularly. Children were divided randomly into a control group (CG) and intervention group (IG). The app was calibrated in a lab and configured to store average values every 20 seconds in a remote database. In both groups, the app recorded data only when a child’s face was present in the camera image. The app darkened the screen for the IG when the face-device distance was shorter than 40 cm. The total mean face-device distance was 36.8 ± 5.7 cm in CG and 47.2 ± 6.5 cm in IG. Children in IG had to accommodate approximately 0.6 D less when using their devices. The mean classroom face illuminance was 980 ± 350 lux in School #1 and 750 ± 400 lux in School #2. The novel method of remotely monitoring and controlling the face-device distance and illuminance can potentially open new paths for myopia prevention and myopia control.

Purpose: To evaluate the refractive impact of dual‐focus (DF) myopia control contact lenses (CLs) on accommodating young myopic adults. Methods: Phase 1: accommodative accuracy was assessed in 40 myopic participants. Phase 2: a subset of four subjects who demonstrated accurate accommodation and six who chronically underaccommodated were fitted with single vision (SV, Proclear 1 day) and centre‐distance DF myopia control CLs (MiSight 1 day) with approximately +2.00 D of additional power in two surrounding annular zones. While binocularly viewing high contrast characters at 4.00, 1.00, 0.50, 0.33, 0.25 and 0.20 m, aberrometry data were captured across the central ±30° of the horizontal retina. Local refractive errors were pooled for each area of the pupil covered by the central distance or first annular defocus zone of the DF CLs. Results: In the “good” accommodator group fitted with SV CLs, accommodative lags were generally absent except at the closest viewing distance (mean errors: −0.09 ± 0.22 D, −0.12 ± 0.26 D, −0.05 ± 0.37 D and +0.38 ± 0.54 D for −2.00, −3.00, −4.00 and −5.00 D target vergences, respectively) but significantly larger in the “poor” accommodating participants (+0.81 ± 0.21 D, +0.97 ± 0.27 D, +1.18 ± 0.39 D, +1.47 ± 0.55 D). For most viewing distances, hyperopic defocus observed in the region of the pupil covered by the first annular zone was replaced with myopic defocus when fitted with the DF CLs. Myopic defocus created by the first annular region was present across the central 30° of the retina. Conclusions: Some young adult myopes chronically experience high levels of hyperopic defocus when viewing near targets, which was replaced by myopic defocus in the annular part of the pupil covered by the treatment zones when fitted with a centre‐distance myopia control DF CL.

SIGNIFICANCE: Consistent with closed‐loop models of regulated eye growth, a successful dual‐focus (DF) myopia‐control contact lens focused a significant proportion of light anterior to the central retina in eyes of treated children viewing near and distant targets. PURPOSE: This study examined the optical impact of a DF contact lens during near viewing in a sample of habitual DF lens wearing children. METHODS: Seventeen myopic children aged 14 to 18 years who had completed 3 or 6 years of treatment with a DF contact lens (MiSight 1 Day; CooperVision, Inc., San Ramon, CA) were recruited and fit bilaterally with the DF and a single‐vision (Proclear 1 Day; CooperVision, Inc.) contact lens. Right eye wavefronts were measured using a pyramidal aberrometer (Osiris; CSO, Florence, Italy) while children accommodated binocularly to high‐contrast letter stimuli at five target vergences. Wavefront error data were used to compute pupil maps of refractive state. RESULTS: During near viewing, children wearing single‐vision lenses accommodated on average to achieve approximate focus in the pupil center but, because of combined accommodative lag and negative spherical aberration, experienced up to 2.00 D of hyperopic defocus in the pupil margins. With DF lenses, children accommodated similarly achieving approximate focus in the pupil center. When viewing three near distances (0.48, 0.31, and 0.23 m), the added +2.00 D within the DF lens treatment optics shifted the mean defocus from +0.75 to −1.00 D. The DF lens reduced the percentage of hyperopic defocus (≥+0.75 D) in the retinal image from 52 to 25% over these target distances, leading to an increase in myopic defocus (≤−0.50 D) from 17 to 42%. CONCLUSIONS: The DF contact lens did not alter the accommodative behavior of children. The treatment optics introduced myopic defocus and decreased the amount of hyperopically defocused light in the retinal image.