{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022318214542836574, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0014398848092152627, 'mean_word_length': 5.747572815533981, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Correction of presbyopia: old problems with old (and new) solutions

We live in a three‐dimensional world and the human eye can focus images from a wide range of distances by adjusting the power of the eye's lens (accommodation). Progressive senescent changes in the lens ultimately lead to a complete loss of this ability by about age 50, which then requires alternative strategies to generate high‐quality retinal images for far and close viewing distances. This review paper highlights the biomimetic properties and underlying optical mechanisms of induced anisometropia, small apertures, dynamic lenses, and multi‐optic lenses in ameliorating the visual consequences of presbyopia. Specifically, the advantages and consequences of non‐liner neural summation leveraged in monovision treatments are reviewed. Additionally, the value of a small pupil is quantified, and the impact of pinhole pupil location and their effects on neural sensitivity are examined. Different strategies of generating multifocal optics are also examined, and specifically the interaction between ocular and contact or intraocular lens aberrations and their effect on resulting image quality are simulated. Interestingly, most of the novel strategies for aiding presbyopic and pseudophakic eyes (for example, monovision, multifocality, pinhole pupils) have emerged naturally via evolution in a range of species.