عنوان انگلیسی مقاله:
Is reading rate in digital eye strain influenced by binocular and accommodative anomalies?
ترجمه فارسی عنوان مقاله:
آیا میزان خواندن در فشار دیجیتال چشم تحت تأثیر ناهنجاری های دو چشمی و سازگار است؟
Sciencedirect - Elsevier - Journal of Optometry, 14 (2021) 229-239: doi:10:1016/j:optom:2020:08:006
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.
KEYWORDS: Digital eye strain | Binocular vision anomalies | Accommodative anomalies | Low power convex (plus) | addition lens | Computer vision | syndrome