Elsevier

Experimental Eye Research

Volume 114, September 2013, Pages 48-57
Experimental Eye Research

Light levels, refractive development, and myopia – A speculative review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2013.05.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Reviews effects of outdoor light levels on human refractive development and myopia.

  • Reviews effects of light levels on animal models of refractive development.

  • Examines possible mechanisms for the effect of illuminance on refraction.

  • Proposes a model of how elevated illuminance may act via dopaminergic pathways.

Abstract

Recent epidemiological evidence in children indicates that time spent outdoors is protective against myopia. Studies in animal models (chick, macaque, tree shrew) have found that light levels (similar to being in the shade outdoors) that are mildly elevated compared to indoor levels, slow form-deprivation myopia and (in chick and tree shrew) lens-induced myopia. Normal chicks raised in low light levels (50 lux) with a circadian light on/off cycle often develop spontaneous myopia. We propose a model in which the ambient illuminance levels produce a continuum of effects on normal refractive development and the response to myopiagenic stimuli such that low light levels favor myopia development and elevated levels are protective. Among possible mechanisms, elevation of retinal dopamine activity seems the most likely. Inputs from intrinsically-photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) at elevated light levels may be involved, providing additional activation of retinal dopaminergic pathways.

Introduction

Recent studies from numerous groups have reported that outdoor activity is protective against myopia development in children (Deng et al., 2010; Dirani et al., 2009; French et al., 2013; Guggenheim et al., 2012; Jones et al., 2007; Mutti et al., 2002; Rose et al., 2008a) and, in animal models of myopia, that elevated light levels slow the rate of myopia development (Ashby et al., 2009; Ashby and Schaeffel, 2010; Siegwart et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2012). These results raise the issue of the how ambient light levels may affect the emmetropization mechanism, including normal refractive development and the response to myopiagenic stimuli.

In comparison with illuminance levels outdoors, indoor lighting experienced by humans is typically less than 1000 lux and often much less – in the range of 100–500 lux. This, of course, is far less than the light levels experienced outdoors during the daytime (130,000 lux and above in direct sun on a clear day, about 15,000 lux in the shade). Indeed, these are the levels that presumably were experienced by terrestrial vertebrate eyes throughout the evolution of the primate line. Most terrestrial creatures develop in a visual environment that ranges from high photopic light levels outdoors during the day to mesopic levels at dawn and dusk (or inside buildings) and scotopic levels at night unless artificial lighting is provided. Rather than considering outdoor illuminance levels to be “high” or “bright” or “elevated,” it is more appropriate to consider them as normal, and to consider “standard” indoor illuminance as low.

With the development of towns and cities, one may suppose that humans began to spend more time indoors, in lower-illuminance conditions; time spent indoors also appears to have increased with the development of indoor lighting and the development of non-agricultural indoor employment. Good visual acuity, needed for reading and other visual tasks that involve fine detail, is achieved with illuminances of approximately 100 lux–500 lux (Norton et al., 2002). Based at least in part on the increased costs involved in providing light levels above this point, indoor lighting for humans, and the lighting provided in the vivaria housing many of the animals used in studies of refractive development, are in this same illuminance range (Feldkaemper et al., 1999; Li and Howland, 2003; Morgan et al., 2004; Norton and McBrien, 1992; Schmid and Wildsoet, 1997; Smith, III et al., 2001) and, rarely, up to 1000 lux (Bitzer et al., 2000). The emerging reports of the protective effects of outdoor activity on myopia suggest that it is important to systematically explore the effect of illuminance levels above the low photopic levels experienced indoors.

In this review we suggest, as have Cohen et al. (2011, 2012) that the effects of illuminance on the emmetropization mechanism may form a continuum from scotopic and low photopic light levels, which foster the development myopic refractive errors, to the much higher illuminance levels experienced in the outdoors that affect refractive development, keeping eyes slightly hyperopic, and reduce the impact of myopiagenic stimuli. Indeed, in a 1999 paper on the effect of light levels on form-deprivation myopia in chicks, Feldkaemper et al. (1999) concluded, “Experiments show that the eye becomes more sensitive to image degradation at low light, the human eye may also be more prone to develop myopia if the light levels are low during extended periods of near work.”

Although the amount of light reaching the retina is presumably the key factor, it is difficult to measure the μW/cm2 of the many visible wavelengths that enter through the pupil and reach the retina. For convenience, illuminance (light falling on a surface) is a more easily measured quantity, indicating the amount of visible light (lumens) reaching an area of a surface (square meters) and corrected for the spectral sensitivity of humans: the lux. Illuminance levels from the sun on a clear day are approximately 130,000 lux (Birmingham, Alabama). Higher levels have also been reported (Dharani et al., 2012). In the shade on a sunny day, lux measured at the ground is typically 15,000–25,000 lux. Outdoors on a cloudy day it ranges from 10,000 to 40,000 lux. By comparison, indoor illuminance (100–500 lux) is very low.

Of course, most eyes are not pointed constantly toward the sky, but are aimed roughly parallel to the ground and mostly receive light reflected from objects. Light reaching the retina in this manner is lower, sometimes considerably so. Changes in pupil diameter also can alter the retinal illuminance by over 1 log unit. That said, the illuminance in lux can serve as an indicator of the upper limit of available light. This review will examine the relatively few studies that have varied the illuminance levels above and (in animal studies) slightly below standard indoor levels. Even though these indoor illuminance levels are, in an evolutionary sense, “low”, they are the levels at which most human and animal observations have been made and therefore serve as a standard level. By comparison, outdoor illuminance levels and the levels used in a few animal studies are “elevated” and we will refer to them as such.

Section snippets

Normal refractive development

The effects of illuminance on human refractive development occur against a background of changing refractive state in the months and years after birth. At birth, refractive state, measured with cycloplegia, is broadly distributed, ranging from low myopia (−1 to −4 D) to high hyperopia (up to 8 D) with a mean refraction of low (2 D) to moderate (3.5 D) hyperopia (Chen et al., 2011; Cook and Glasscock, 1951). This may reflect genetic factors that determine the location of the focal plane (corneal

Animal studies

Over the past 35 years there has been extensive characterization of the emmetropization mechanism in animal models, examining normal refractive development and induced myopia produced with form deprivation or negative lens-wear. However, the majority of these studies have used “standard” colony lighting that, from the present perspective, is quite low, in the range of 100–500 lux. Currently, we have only a very limited understanding of ambient illuminance as a variable that may affect the

Blur, and/or vitamin D levels

Several potential mechanisms have been suggested to explain the protective effects of outdoor activity against myopia in children. To the extent that hyperopic defocus on the retina from near targets contributes to axial elongation and myopia development in children, being outside with few nearby objects could remove that stimulus. In addition, the pupils would be expected to be smaller in the higher outdoor light levels, increasing the depth of focus and further reducing blur. These factors

Illuminance as a continuous variable

The research reviewed in the previous sections leads us to suggest that ambient light levels act as a continuous variable that, as light levels rise through the photopic range, has an increasing impact on the emmetropization mechanism (Fig. 2). The effect of rising illuminance is to shift the endpoint of normal refractive development toward hyperopia and to slow the response to myopiagenic stimuli. In this model it is assumed that illuminance varies on a circadian cycle with a period of low

Concluding comments

In this review, we have tried to integrate information from human epidemiological studies, from investigations using animals models of refractive development and myopia, and from studies of retinal circuitry to suggest ways in which illuminance levels may impact normal refractive development and the response to environmental myopiagenic stimuli. We recognize that the resulting model is incomplete and, no doubt, contains some incorrect conclusions. The intersection of illuminance levels,

Acknowledgments

Supported by NIH grants R01 EY005922 and P30 EY003039 (Core). We thank Alexander H. Ward for participation in the tree shrew elevated light level study and in preliminary dopamine studies and Dr. Michael R. Frost for helpful comments on the manuscript and assistance in figure preparation. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and helpful comments.

References (142)

  • A. Gentle et al.

    Collagen gene expression and the altered accumulation of scleral collagen during the development of high myopia

    J. Biol. Chem.

    (2003)
  • Y. Guo et al.

    Outdoor activity and myopia among primary students in rural and urban regions of Beijing

    Ophthalmology

    (2013)
  • M.H. Howlett et al.

    Form-deprivation myopia in the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus)

    Vision Res.

    (2006)
  • M.H. Howlett et al.

    Emmetropization and schematic eye models in developing pigmented guinea pigs

    Vision Res.

    (2007)
  • M.H. Howlett et al.

    Spectacle lens compensation in the pigmented guinea pig

    Vision Res.

    (2009)
  • E.M. Leech et al.

    Pirenzepine prevents form deprivation myopia in a dose dependent manner

    Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt.

    (1995)
  • T. Li et al.

    Constant light produces severe corneal flattening and hyperopia in chickens

    Vision Res.

    (1995)
  • T. Li et al.

    Diurnal illumination patterns affect the development of the chick eye

    Vision Res.

    (2000)
  • F. Lu et al.

    Axial myopia induced by a monocularly-deprived facemask in guinea pigs: a non-invasive and effective model

    Exp. Eye Res.

    (2006)
  • N.A. McBrien et al.

    The development of experimental myopia and ocular component dimensions in monocularly lid-sutured tree shrews (Tupaia belangeri)

    Vision Res.

    (1992)
  • C.S. McCarthy et al.

    Dopaminergic agents affect the ability of brief periods of normal vision to prevent form-deprivation myopia

    Exp. Eye Res.

    (2007)
  • D.L. Nickla et al.

    Dopamine antagonists and brief vision distinguish lens-induced- and form-deprivation-induced myopia

    Exp. Eye Res.

    (2011)
  • D.L. Nickla et al.

    Dopaminergic agonists that result in ocular growth inhibition also elicit transient increases in choroidal thickness in chicks

    Exp. Eye Res.

    (2010)
  • T.T. Norton et al.

    Normal development of refractive state and ocular component dimensions in the tree shrew (Tupaia belangeri)

    Vision Res.

    (1992)
  • T.T. Norton et al.

    Reduced extracellular matrix accumulation in mammalian sclera with induced myopia

    Vision Res.

    (1995)
  • T.T. Norton et al.

    The effect of age on compensation for a negative lens and recovery from lens-induced myopia in tree shrews (Tupaia glis belangeri)

    Vision Res.

    (2010)
  • R.L. Pickett-Seltner et al.

    Experimentally induced myopia does not affect post-hatching development of the chick lens

    Vision Res.

    (1987)
  • R.L. Pickett-Seltner et al.

    Experimentally induced myopia in chicks: morphometric and biochemical analysis during the first 14 days after hatching

    Vision Res.

    (1988)
  • Y. Qiao-Grider et al.

    Nature of the refractive errors in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) with experimentally induced ametropias

    Vision Res.

    (2010)
  • B. Rohrer et al.

    Basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) and transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) act as stop and go signals to modulate postnatal ocular growth in the chick

    Exp. Eye Res.

    (1994)
  • K.A. Rose et al.

    Outdoor activity reduces the prevalence of myopia in children

    Ophthalmology

    (2008)
  • R.S. Ashby et al.

    The effect of bright light on lens compensation in chicks

    Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

    (2010)
  • R. Ashby et al.

    The effect of ambient illuminance on the development of deprivation myopia in chicks

    Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

    (2009)
  • R. Ashby et al.

    Alterations in ZENK and glucagon RNA transcript expression during increased ocular growth in chickens

    Mol. Vis.

    (2010)
  • S. Backhouse et al.

    Effect of induced myopia on scleral myofibroblasts and in vivo ocular biomechanical compliance in the guinea pig

    Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

    (2010)
  • R.H. Bedrossian

    The effect of atropine on myopia

    Ophthalmol. Rochester

    (1979)
  • A. Benavente-Perez et al.

    The effect of simultaneous negative and positive defocus on eye growth and development of refractive state in marmosets

    Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

    (2012)
  • M.S. Borchert et al.

    Risk factors for hyperopia and myopia in preschool children: the Multi-Ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study and the Baltimore Pediatric Eye Disease Study

  • D.V. Bradley et al.

    Emmetropization in the rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta): birth to young adulthood

    Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

    (1999)
  • M.A. Cameron et al.

    Light regulation of retinal dopamine that is independent of melanopsin phototransduction

    Eur. J. Neurosci.

    (2009)
  • J. Chen et al.

    Cycloplegic and noncycloplegic refractions of Chinese neonatal infants

    Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

    (2011)
  • D.P. Crewther et al.

    Refractive compensation to optical defocus depends on the temporal profile of luminance modulation of the environment

    NeuroReport

    (2002)
  • L. Deng et al.

    Children's refractions and visual activities in the school year and summer

    Optom. Vis. Sci.

    (2010)
  • R. Dharani et al.

    Comparison of measurements of time outdoors and light levels as risk factors for myopia in young Singapore children

    Eye (Lond)

    (2012)
  • M. Dirani et al.

    Outdoor activity and myopia in Singapore teenage children

    Br. J. Ophthalmol.

    (2009)
  • F. Dong et al.

    Inhibition of experimental myopia by a dopamine agonist: different effectiveness between form deprivation and hyperopic defocus in guinea pigs

    Mol. Vis.

    (2011)
  • S.E. Doyle et al.

    Circadian rhythmicity in dopamine content of mammalian retina: role of the photoreceptors

    J. Neurochem.

    (2002)
  • O.N. Dumitrescu et al.

    Ectopic retinal ON bipolar cell synapses in the OFF inner plexiform layer: contacts with dopaminergic amacrine cells and melanopsin ganglion cells

    J. Comp. Neurol.

    (2009)
  • D. Ehrlich et al.

    Effects of selective neurotoxins on eye growth in the young chick

    Ciba Found. Symp.

    (1990)
  • A.N. French et al.

    Patterns of myopigenic activities with age, gender and ethnicity in Sydney schoolchildren

    Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt.

    (2013)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text