Cargando…

Is reading rate in digital eyestrain influenced by binocular and accommodative anomalies?

INTRODUCTION: Symptoms experienced when using digital devices are known as digital eyestrain (DES) or computer vision syndrome. They can be categorised as either external (associated with dry eye) or internal (related to refractive, accommodative or binocular vision anomalies). In a large cohort of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yammouni, Robert, Evans, Bruce J.W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8258174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33115619
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2020.08.006
_version_ 1783718450868256768
author Yammouni, Robert
Evans, Bruce J.W.
author_facet Yammouni, Robert
Evans, Bruce J.W.
author_sort Yammouni, Robert
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Symptoms experienced when using digital devices are known as digital eyestrain (DES) or computer vision syndrome. They can be categorised as either external (associated with dry eye) or internal (related to refractive, accommodative or binocular vision anomalies). In a large cohort of adults with DES, we investigate the prevalence of binocular and accommodative anomalies, contrasting different diagnostic approaches, to evaluate potential mechanisms for the benefit from +0.75D addition lens that has been previously reported. METHODS: Participants (20−40y) were selected using the Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire (CVS-Q) tool as suffering with DES. A comprehensive eye examination was given to each participant, and this paper concentrates on “internal factors”, detected with a refraction and comprehensive testing of binocular and accommodative functions. The effects of low-powered addition lenses (+0.50D, +0.75D, +1.25D; and plano controls) were assessed by double-masked testing with the Wilkins Rate of Reading Test (WRRT) and by subjective preference. RESULTS: As previously reported, most participants showed a subjective preference for one of the three convex lenses we used, with +0.75D chosen most frequently. Performance at the WRRT was significantly improved with +0.50D and +0.75D, but not +1.25D. Using a variety of diagnostic criteria, there were no strong associations between WRRT results or CVS-Q scores and any binocular or accommodation functions. The one finding of significance is that a disproportionate number of participants who benefited from adds had an eso-fixation disparity on the near Mallett unit, although this only affected 5% of the population. CONCLUSIONS: DES is a collection of diverse symptoms that have a multifactorial aetiology. In the sample described here, binocular and accommodative anomalies do not seem to be a major cause of DES. Nevertheless, in view of the multifactorial aetiology it is recommended that patients with the symptoms of DES are assessed with a comprehensive eye examination. Patients with an esophoric fixation disparity on the near Mallett unit are particularly likely to benefit from near additions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8258174
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82581742021-07-23 Is reading rate in digital eyestrain influenced by binocular and accommodative anomalies? Yammouni, Robert Evans, Bruce J.W. J Optom Original Article INTRODUCTION: Symptoms experienced when using digital devices are known as digital eyestrain (DES) or computer vision syndrome. They can be categorised as either external (associated with dry eye) or internal (related to refractive, accommodative or binocular vision anomalies). In a large cohort of adults with DES, we investigate the prevalence of binocular and accommodative anomalies, contrasting different diagnostic approaches, to evaluate potential mechanisms for the benefit from +0.75D addition lens that has been previously reported. METHODS: Participants (20−40y) were selected using the Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire (CVS-Q) tool as suffering with DES. A comprehensive eye examination was given to each participant, and this paper concentrates on “internal factors”, detected with a refraction and comprehensive testing of binocular and accommodative functions. The effects of low-powered addition lenses (+0.50D, +0.75D, +1.25D; and plano controls) were assessed by double-masked testing with the Wilkins Rate of Reading Test (WRRT) and by subjective preference. RESULTS: As previously reported, most participants showed a subjective preference for one of the three convex lenses we used, with +0.75D chosen most frequently. Performance at the WRRT was significantly improved with +0.50D and +0.75D, but not +1.25D. Using a variety of diagnostic criteria, there were no strong associations between WRRT results or CVS-Q scores and any binocular or accommodation functions. The one finding of significance is that a disproportionate number of participants who benefited from adds had an eso-fixation disparity on the near Mallett unit, although this only affected 5% of the population. CONCLUSIONS: DES is a collection of diverse symptoms that have a multifactorial aetiology. In the sample described here, binocular and accommodative anomalies do not seem to be a major cause of DES. Nevertheless, in view of the multifactorial aetiology it is recommended that patients with the symptoms of DES are assessed with a comprehensive eye examination. Patients with an esophoric fixation disparity on the near Mallett unit are particularly likely to benefit from near additions. Elsevier 2021 2020-10-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8258174/ /pubmed/33115619 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2020.08.006 Text en © 2020 Spanish General Council of Optometry. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Yammouni, Robert
Evans, Bruce J.W.
Is reading rate in digital eyestrain influenced by binocular and accommodative anomalies?
title Is reading rate in digital eyestrain influenced by binocular and accommodative anomalies?
title_full Is reading rate in digital eyestrain influenced by binocular and accommodative anomalies?
title_fullStr Is reading rate in digital eyestrain influenced by binocular and accommodative anomalies?
title_full_unstemmed Is reading rate in digital eyestrain influenced by binocular and accommodative anomalies?
title_short Is reading rate in digital eyestrain influenced by binocular and accommodative anomalies?
title_sort is reading rate in digital eyestrain influenced by binocular and accommodative anomalies?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8258174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33115619
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2020.08.006
work_keys_str_mv AT yammounirobert isreadingrateindigitaleyestraininfluencedbybinocularandaccommodativeanomalies
AT evansbrucejw isreadingrateindigitaleyestraininfluencedbybinocularandaccommodativeanomalies