Table 1.
Contact lens specifications.
Fig 1.
This figure shows the different maps combined with their scale in Dioptres.
1A) Environmental maps. 1B) Contact lens profiles. 1C) Different types of peripheral refractive errors (as power distributions). 1D) Blank map with the segmentation assessment (for display purposes).
Fig 2.
Error-bar plots of the peripheral refraction and “over-refraction” with the different contact lenses for one subject in each one of the five meridians in-use.
In blue, peripheral refraction or naked eye; in red, over-refraction with near-centre design contact lens; in yellow, over-refraction with distance-centre refraction.
Fig 3.
Average and SD of the SE contact lens profiles, after subtracting the naked eye conditions (n = 13).
Images from top to bottom and left to right represent the different meridians measured. Y-axis: dioptres scale; X-axis: degrees scale. The points notated with a blue ‘*’ are the points where non-significant statistical differences were found, after applying Mann-Whitney-U-test and the Benjamini-Hochberg FDR correction.
Fig 4.
Non-significant differences in the post-hoc analysis when comparing the different scenarios.
The absence of markers indicates that those regions were significantly different under all conditions tested.
Fig 5.
Non-significant differences in the post-hoc analysis when comparing the different optical treatments.
The absence of markers indicates that those regions were significantly different under all conditions tested.
Fig 6.
Non-significant differences in the post-hoc analysis when comparing the different types of peripheral refraction.
The absence of markers indicates that those regions were significantly different under all conditions tested.
Fig 7.
Computed, theoretical symmetric power profile of contact lenses, based on the values found in the measurements and the theoretical design of the contact lenses.