An individual’s perception of blur depends on two main factors: first, the physiological factor which is determined by perceptual tolerance to blur and size and distribution of photoreceptors on the retina1,2 and second, the optical factors which are responsible for focusing light entering the eye on the retina. Foveally, defocus is the more dominant factor responsible for visual blur. The human eye often suffers from error of refraction and other optical aberrations leading to certain degrees of blur. Perhaps conveniently, the visual system does not detect blur until the magnitude of defocus exceeds a perceptual tolerable range termed the depth of focus whose conjugate in object space is termed the depth of field. Many studies have investigated the factors influencing the depth of focus of the human eye3–12. One determinant of depth of focus is the maximum size of a blur circle (assuming a circular pupil) projected from a point object on to the retina that does not elicit significant visual blur. This in turn depends on the size and density of photoreceptors, along with other physiological factors such as the Stiles-Crawford effect3,4. For example, depth of focus is greater in the peripheral retina, where rods and cones are more sparsely distributed, than in the foveal region5. It has been well understood that the primary factors influencing depth of focus of the human eye include the refractive power of the eye6, axial length7 and pupil diameter8,9. Some other factors such as luminance3, contrast3,10, colour11, visual acuity7 and accommodation12 have also been associated with depth of focus. The importance of depth of field in extending the range of near vision is well understood. Its effect is more evident and arguably of greater importance in pseudophakic eyes, implanted with conventional intraocular lenses (IOL), as no accommodation is available due to the loss of the natural crystalline lens. Studies have been reported in which pseudophakic individuals implanted with rigid monofocal IOL can achieve better than predicted near visual acuity without optical aid13,14 despite the assumed complete loss of accommodative ability. This is a phenomenon familiar to the clinicians. In addition to the apparent accommodation or pseudo-accommodation15, improved depth of focus16 is often credited as a factor associated with spectacle independence in these eyes; though a study16 reported no difference in depth of focus between phakic and pseudophakic groups. Whether theoretically predicted or clinically measured, depth of field alone is insufficient for practical near vision. A post-operatively emmetropic pseudophakic eye is typically expected to require about +2.50D of near correction at spectacle plane for clinically acceptable near vision assuming a standard working distance of 40 cm. In the attempt to provide a greater range of near vision by restoring the ability to change focus for near vision in pseudophakic eyes, various types of accommodating intraocular lenses (AIOL) have been introduced18,19. AIOLs that employ a single optical element (hereafter called “1E-AIOL”) are already in clinical use, while two-element AIOL (2E-AIOL) are still investigational to date. These AIOLs are designed to accommodate by axial translation of the lens elements. Clinical reports investigating the performance 1E-AIOL in terms of achieved accommodation and near vision varies with mixed interpretation of the results20,21. Near vision after implantation of 1E-AIOL reported in the literatures22–25 is higher than expected from theoretically predicted accommodation26–29. Clinical intuition might attribute such improved performance to extension of the range of near vision due to improved depth of field. Hence, it would be of interest to understand any relationship between factors relating to AIOL design and implantation and the depth of field that may be achieved. Such knowledge would also be useful for optimising the near vision performance of AIOL. Although some press articles have alleged improved near performance of AIOL due to improved depth of focus relating to position of implantation relative to the nodal point30, to our knowledge, no scientific literature exists investigating the influence of design and implementation factors on the depth of field. Given the foregoing, we sought to investigate, by theoretical paraxial optics, the effect of design and implantation factors on the depth of field of 1E-AIOL and 2E-AIOL. The factors investigated in the present study included types of AIOL design (1E or 2E), amount of lens element translation (to bring about accommodation), power combinations of lens elements and implant depth (antero-posterior positioning). While the term “depth of focus” is commonly used in the literature, the range of acceptably clear vision in the object space is more correctly termed “depth of field”. In this study, calculations of depth of field were referred to in dioptric units and hence quantitatively, “depth of focus” and “depth of field” are equivalent. Throughout this manuscript, except where reference sources employ otherwise, we use the term “depth of field”