Developmental compensation of imposed astigmatism is not initiated by astigmatic accommodation in chickens

PURPOSE It is not clear whether emmetropization is confined to spherical refractive errors, or whether astiqmatic errors are also corrected via visual feedback. Experimental results from the animal model of the chicken are equivocal since compensation of imposed astimatic defocus was found in some but not all studies. Astigmatism could only be compensated by changes in the geometry of the cornea or lens. One has tested whether astigmatic spectacle lenses induce astigmatic accommodation as a possible first step of long-lasting compensation. METHODS Thirty-five chickens were treated with cylinder lenses (+3/0D or -3/0D) for 5 h. Refractions were determined at 1.38 m distance without cycloplegia in hand-held chicks before attaching the lenses, with the lenses on (0 h), and after 3 and 5 h, and after removal of the lenses. Spheres (S), cylinders (C) and axes (A) were determined using infrared photoretinocopy in three axes (the 'PowerRefractor', equipped with a 135 mm lens). RESULTS (1) The performance of the 'PowerRefractor' was tested in the chickens with trial lenses and gave correct refractions. (2) Astigmatic trial lenses induced refractive errors as expected from their powers in the case of +3/0D lenses: (S) +3.26 +/- 0.93D, (C) -3.45 +/- 0.87D). In the case of -3/0D lenses, slightly more hyperopic spheres were induced (refractions (S) +4.5 +/- 0.48D) but the cylinders were still as expected (-3.25 +/- 0.49D). The axes of astigmatism were correctly reproduced, since rotating the lenses changed the axes of the induced cylinders as expected. (3) Neither after 3 nor after 5 h of lens wear were there significant changes in the axes or the magnitude of astigmatism. Directly after removal of the lens, the refractions did not differ from their start-up values (with +3/0D lenses: (S) +3.31 +/- 1.05D vs. +3.22 +/- 0.76D, (C) -1.19 +/- 1.77D vs. -0.65 +/- 0.94D, (A) 96 +/- 49 vs. 113 +/- 45 deg; with -3/0D lenses: (S) 2.63 +/- 1.12D vs. 2.97 +/- 0.94D, (C) -1.11 +/- 1.15D vs. -0.53 +/- 0.56D, (A) 78 +/- 24 vs. 131 +/- 35 deg). CONCLUSIONS The most intuitive mechanism for compensation of astigmatic refractive errors, astigmatic accommodation, could not be demonstrated in chickens. In light of this finding, it seems unlikely that a visually controlled mechanism is operating during development to reduced astigmatism by changing corneal or lenticular growth.