New findings from a large-scale, real-world study on Newton, Inc.’s Neurolens with Contoured Prism technology demonstrate positive—and superior—symptom relief compared to conventional prism.
New data?! Nice! But first, refresh me on Newton.
We’ve covered Newton (formerly Neurolens, after its trademark prescription eyewear lenses ) a fair amount in the last few months, as evidenced by these latest updates:
- September 2025: Newton debuted its new company name and rebrand
- Later that month, the company also launched the new Sequel lens—including its Convergence Boost Lens Technology (more on that in a moment).
- October 2025: Newton announces Sequel lens’ availability through VSP.
- November 2025: Newton acquired Founders Optical Lab
- January 2026: The company named ABB Labs as its strategic lab partner
Now let’s talk Neurolens.
Newton’s Neurolens system comprises prescription eyewear lenses and contoured-prism technology designed to:
- Compensate for patients' misalignments across all visual distances (near, intermediate, and far)
- Relieve symptoms associated with digital eye strain and computer vision syndrome (including headaches, shoulder tension, and neck pain)
Most notably: 2024 research supports Neurolens as the first and only therapeutic lens clinically proven to provide relief for headaches, motion sickness, and neck pain.
And this Contoured Prism technology?
The patented Contoured Prism technology is a uniquely-designed prism embedded in each Neurolens and offering a gradual prism adjustment to:
- Ensure accurate (binocular) alignment across all viewing distances
- Avoid the rigidity of conventional prism correction
See here for details on how the lenses and technology work together to correct this eye alignment.
Next up: the real-world study.
Investigators conducted this retrospective analysis by utilizing a large clinical dataset based on Neurolens provider locations listed from September 2023 to October 2025.
The dataset: Consisted of nearly 100,000 (96,745, to be exact) patients meeting inclusion criteria for any of the study’s three study groups: Neurolens, conventional prism lens, or control.
- Group assignments were based on patients’ changes in prescription lenses between two clinic visits, with:
- Patients in the Neurolens group not wearing Neurolens or conventional prisms at visit 1, but were at visit 2 (indicating Neurolens had been prescribed following visit 1).
- Patients in the conventional prism group not wearing either Neurolens or conventional prism at visit 1, but were wearing prism lens at visit 2
- Patients in the control group not wearing either lens at either clinic visits, indicating they did not meet the necessary criteria
Got it. And what was evaluated?
The primary outcome included comparing the change from baseline in the overall Neurolens Lifestyle Index questionnaire scores between the Neurolens versus control groups and the Neurolens versus conventional prism groups.
- To note: This questionnaire involves seven domains with ratings on a scale of 1 (no symptoms) to 5 (severe symptoms), and a maximum possible score of 35.
The secondary outcome involved a comparison of three key subdomains between the study groups: headache, stiffness / pain in the neck and shoulders, and tired eyes.
- Also: One tailed t-test was used to compare the groups, with a p-value of < 0.05 considered statistically significant
Now to the results.
An overview of the study and its results were published in a white paper by study author Sumeer Singh, Bsc Optometry, M. Phil, PhD.
Based on that: The group breakdown of those 96,745 patient records was as follows:
- Neurolens group (n = 4,807)
- Conventional prism group (n = 1,293)
- Control group (n = 90,645)
A couple of notes: Each group had a greater number of females versus males; the average spherical equivalent (SE) was balanced between eyes and similar across all three groups’ and over 60% of participants wore single-vision lenses.
How did prism values compare?
The average value in the Neurolens group was 1.19 base in (BI) prism diopters, while the conventional prism group’s average was 0.91 BI prism diopters.
These values were obtained from patients’ second clinic rather than their baseline (first) visit—as “participants were not wearing prism at baseline,” according to investigators.
And based on that questionnaire?
Between the Neurolens and conventional prism groups, Neurolens patients demonstrated “a statistically significant improvement” versus conventional prism patients (p < 0.01).
- This equated to a 28% greater improvement in symptoms for the Neurolens versus conventional prism group.
Let’s get more specific.
Comparing patients’ headache scores, the Neurolens group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement over both the control and conventional prism groups (p <0.01)—with a 41% greater improvement in the Neurolens relative to conventional prism groups.
The data for visits 1 and 2 (mean [SD]), respectively:
- Neurolens: 3:00 (1.18) vs 2.69 (1.11)
- Change from baseline: -0.31 (1.00)
- Conventional prism: 2.79 (1.20) vs 2.57 (1.16)
- Change from baseline: -0.22 (0.94)
- Control: 2.30 (1.06) vs 2.20 (1.02)
- Change from baseline: -0.10 (0.87)
And how did this compare to the other symptoms?
For neck and shoulder stiffness: That statistically significant improvement (p < 0.01) for the Neurolens group continued when compared to the other two groups—with a 53% greater improvement for Neurolens versus the conventional prism group.
The data for visits 1 and 2 (SD), respectively:
- Neurolens: 3:03 (1.23) vs 2.77 (1.19)
- Change from baseline: -0.26 (1.08)
- Conventional prism: 2.80 (1.23) vs 2.63 (1.25)
- Change from baseline: -0.17 (1.02)
- Control: 2.38 (1.15) vs 2.30 (1.11)
- Change from baseline: -0.08 (0.99)
And how about for tired eyes?
That statistically significant improvement continued for those scores as well (p < 0.01), with a 27% greater tired eye improvement noted for the Neurolens group over the conventional prism group.
The data for all three groups’ visits 1 and 2 (SD), respectively:
- Neurolens: 3:15 (1.10) vs 2.86 (1.09)
- Change from baseline: -0.28 (1.11)
- Conventional prism: 3.01 (1.16) vs 2.79 (1.15)
- Change from baseline: -0.22 (1.07)
- Control: 2.48 (1.07) vs 2.37 (1.03)
- Change from baseline: -0.11 (1.00)
Well then. I’m sensing a theme for the Neurolens group’s performance.
Considering its consistent “statistically significant symptom improvement” when stacked against the other two groups, we’d say you’re right.
As the white paper reported, Neurolens’ superior demonstration led to an over “28% greater improvement” across both the total scores of the Lifestyle Index and three key subdomains (headache, neck and shoulder stiffness, and eye tiredness).
- And this also further supports the findings from that 2024 study we referenced earlier, in which Neurolens demonstrated its superiority over conventional lenses.
Nice! But were there any limitations to consider with this current study?
Just one—its retrospective design.
While the white paper noted that a study with a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) design would provide additional validation for Neurolens, they also acknowledged the challenges that would pose:
“Conducting such a study with a large sample size and longitudinal follow-up would be both resource and time-intensive and would likely require multisite enrollment,” they stated.
- That being said: “The large real-world dataset (of this current study) provides meaningful clinical insight.”
.. and that insight is … ?
The data suggests that the contoured prism design of Neurolens “may offer enhanced therapeutic benefit beyond that achievable with traditional conventional prism correction.”
As such: The study concluded that Neurolens may be considered a first-line treatment option for patients presenting with symptoms such as headache and visual discomfort—and be particularly useful for patients continuing to experience symptoms with conventional optical approaches.