Objective and subjective assessment of accommodative insufficiency.

SIGNIFICANCE: A variety of subjective and objective procedures are available to measure the amplitude of accommodation. However, it is unclear whether the standard criterion of Hofstetter's minimum minus 2 D can be used to diagnose accommodative insufficiency with each of these techniques. PURPOSE: The use of objective dynamic retinoscopy and three subjective techniques to diagnosis accommodative insufficiency was examined. METHODS: A total of 632 subjects between 8 and 19 years of age were enrolled. Accommodative lag, monocular accommodative facility, and subjective (push-up, modified push-down, and minus lens) and objective (dynamic retinoscopy) amplitude of accommodation were quantified. Accommodative insufficiency was diagnosed based on Hofstetter's minimum minus 2 D for each subjective method, as well as adding an additional subjective criterion (either accommodative lag exceeding 0.75 D or monocular accommodative facility falling below the age-expected norms). RESULTS: The prevalence of accommodative insufficiency was lowest and highest with the push-up (7.9 and 1%) and dynamic retinoscopy (94 and 12%) procedures when measured without and with the additional subjective criteria, respectively. Comparing the validity of dynamic retinoscopy against the traditional criterion, moderate to low sensitivity and high specificity were found. However, adding the additional subjective criteria improved the findings with moderate to high sensitivity and high specificity. Using a cutoff for dynamic retinoscopy of 7.50 D showed moderate diagnostic accuracy based on likelihood ratios. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that a revised definition of accommodative insufficiency is required, which must include the method of assessing accommodation. The various objective and subjective methods for quantifying the amplitude of accommodation are not interchangeable, and subjective assessment does not provide a valid measure of the accommodative response.

20-20-20 Rule: Are These Numbers Justified?

SIGNIFICANCE: The use of digital devices has increased substantially in recent years across all age groups for both vocational and avocational purposes. There are a wide range of proposed therapeutic and management options for this condition, including optical, medical, and ergonomic interventions. PURPOSE: Regular breaks are frequently recommended by clinicians to minimize digital eye strain. The so-called 20-20-20 rule, whereby individuals are advised to fixate on an object at least 20 feet (6 m) away for at least 20 seconds every 20 minutes is widely cited. Unfortunately, there is relatively little peer-reviewed evidence to support this rule. The aim of this investigation was to determine whether scheduled breaks are effective in reducing the adverse effects of digital device usage. METHODS: The study was carried out on 30 young subjects who performed a 40-minute, cognitively demanding reading task from a tablet computer. The task required them to read random words and to identify which ones began with a specific letter chosen by the experimenter. The task was undertaken on four separate occasions, with 20-second breaks being allowed every 5, 10, 20, or 40 minutes (i.e., no break), respectively. Both before and after each trial, subjects completed a questionnaire regarding ocular and visual symptoms experienced during the session. In addition, both reading speed and task accuracy were quantified during each trial. RESULTS: A significant increase in post-task symptoms (with respective to the pre-task value) was observed for all four trials ( P < .001). However, there was no significant effect of scheduled breaks on reported symptoms ( P = .70), reading speed ( P = .93), or task accuracy ( P = .55). CONCLUSIONS: Although widely cited as a treatment option, these results do not support the proposal of using 20-second scheduled breaks as a therapeutic intervention for digital eye strain.

Digital Eyestrain and the Critical Fusion Frequency.

SIGNIFICANCE: Although the high prevalence of digital eyestrain has been well established, to date, there is no objective measurement of this condition. Previous studies have suggested that digital eyestrain may be associated with decreased critical fusion frequency, but the published evidence to support this association is sparse. PURPOSE: This study sought to determine whether symptoms of digital eyestrain after a sustained computer task are indeed associated with changes in critical fusion frequency. METHODS: The experiment was performed on 30 young visual-normal subjects. They attended two sessions, during which they undertook a 20-minute reading task. This comprised either reading random words from a tablet computer or a story from a printed children's book. Critical fusion frequency was measured both before and immediately after each of the reading tasks. In addition, the level of digital eyestrain was assessed by subjects completing a questionnaire regarding ocular and visual symptoms experienced during each of the reading trials. RESULTS: The mean increase in digital eyestrain symptoms after the digital and printed conditions was 11.37 (standard error of the mean [SEM], 2.23) and 4.40 (SEM, 1.34), respectively. Both the post-task symptom change (P < .001) and the difference between the two reading conditions (P = .004) were significant. The mean change in critical fusion frequency after the digital and printed conditions was -0.42 (SEM, 0.25) and -0.72 (SEM, 0.26), respectively. Neither the post-task change nor the difference between the two reading conditions was significant. In addition, when considering the digital condition only, no significant correlation was observed between the changes in critical fusion frequency and reported symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support the proposal that changes in critical fusion frequency can be used as an objective measure of eyestrain or other symptoms of digital eyestrain.

Blue-blocking Filters and Digital Eyestrain.

SIGNIFICANCE: Many manufacturers are currently marketing blue-blocking (BB) filters, which they claim will reduce the symptoms of digital eyestrain (DES). However, there is limited evidence to support the proposal that DES results from the blue light emitted by these devices. PURPOSE: The visual and ocular symptoms commonly experienced when viewing digital screens are collectively termed DES. The emission spectrum of modern digital displays frequently includes a high percentage of blue light. Being higher in energy, these short wavelengths may contribute to DES. This study examined the effect of a BB filter on symptoms of DES during a sustained near-vision task. METHODS: Twenty-three young, visually normal subjects were required to perform a 30-minute reading task from a tablet computer. The digital screen was overlaid with either a BB or neutral-density (ND) filter producing equal screen luminance. During each session, the accommodative response, pupil diameter, and vertical palpebral aperture dimension were measured at 0, 9, 19, and 29 minutes after the start of the reading task. Immediately following each session, subjects completed a questionnaire to quantify symptoms of DES. RESULTS: The BB filter blocked 99% of the wavelengths between 400 and 500 nm. The mean total symptom scores (±1 SEM) for the BB and ND filter conditions were 42.83 (3.58) and 42.61 (3.17), respectively (P = .62). No significant differences in accommodation or vertical palpebral aperture dimension were observed between the two filter conditions, although the magnitude of the mean accommodative response did increase significantly during the first 9 minutes of the task (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: A filter that eliminated 99% of the emitted blue light was no more effective at reducing symptoms of DES than an equiluminant ND filter. There is little evidence at this time to support the use of BB filters to minimize near work-induced asthenopia.

Evaluation of the SVOne Handheld Autorefractor in a Pediatric Population.

PURPOSE: The SVOne is a portable, Hartmann-Shack wavefront aberrometer, which can be attached to a smartphone to determine the refractive error of the eye objectively. Previous results have shown the device to provide measurements equivalent to those of standard clinical techniques in young, healthy adults. The aim of the present study was to compare the findings of the SVOne with retinoscopy, subjective refraction, and two commercially available autorefractors (Retinomax-3 and WAM-5500) in a pediatric population. METHOD: The refractive error of the right eye was assessed both without and with cycloplegia in 40 visually normal children between 5 and 17 years of age (mean age = 11.3 years) using the five techniques described above. Further, to assess repeatability of the instruments, the entire procedure was repeated in a subgroup of five subjects. All data were analyzed in terms of power vectors (M, J0, and J45). RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between the mean values of M (spherical equivalent) for the different techniques. Retinoscopy showed the best agreement with subjective refraction, both without and with cycloplegia, followed by the open-field WAM-5500. The most repeatable procedures, when measured without and with cycloplegia, were the WAM-5500 and retinoscopy, respectively. Measurements with the SVOne showed a decline in repeatability under cycloplegia. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the SVOne provides measurements of refractive error in a normal, pediatric population that are not significantly different from other subjective and objective procedures. Accurate alignment along the visual axis, especially when measuring through a dilated pupil, is critical. This instrument is valuable for vision screenings, for examinations taking place outside the clinical office, and a starting point for the refractive assessment.