Could driving help us to "see better"? A comparative assessment of saccadic efficiency, visual speed, and attention.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed at comparing drivers' and non-drivers' results in the Adult Developmental Eye Movement with Distractors test (ADEMd) and the Useful Field of View test (UFOV). METHODS: One hundred and twenty Spaniards (mean age 50.90 ± 17.32 years) without eye disease voluntarily participated in this cross-sectional descriptive study. Participants in a single experimental session completed a questionnaire on sociodemographic, health, eyesight, and driving information. They also performed the ADEMd and UFOV tests randomly following standardized protocols. The ADEMd is a visual-verbal test that measures saccadic efficiency and visual attention. Brown-Forsythe (B-F) tests with Games-Howell post-hoc adjustments were conducted to assess differences between groups. Groups were formed according to sex, age (young adults, adults, and older adults), and driver/non-driver for further analysis. Additionally, associations between dependent variables were assessed through Spearman's correlations. RESULTS: Drivers obtained significantly better results in the ADEMd compared with non-drivers. Non-significant differences between drivers and non-drivers were encountered in the UFOV. Additionally, significant differences were observed between sexes and age groups. It is worth highlighting that non-driver's age significantly correlated with worse ADEMd performance (rho = .637 to .716). This correlation was non-significant in drivers. Similarly, reading hours significantly correlated with better ADEMd performance in non-drivers (rho = - .291 to - .363), but not in drivers. The only significant correlations between ADEMd and UFOV tests were found in drivers (rho = .307 to .410). CONCLUSION: Considering all the discussed results, it could be hypothesized that the driving task promotes abilities, such as oculomotor and cognitive function, which are relevant for the performance in the ADEMd. However, this hypothesis is based on correlational outcomes and further studies should causally assess this possible relation.

Eye discomfort at close work in Portuguese university students: A comparative analysis between the pre-COVID and confinement period.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals experience visual symptoms associated with near work. The level of discomfort appears to increase with the amount of digital screen use. OBJECTIVE: To study the eye discomfort with near tasks in university students in the pre-COVID period and in the period of confinement due to the pandemic. METHODS: Two independent samples of students, aged between 18 and 35 years, were used to assess symptomatic behaviour with the Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS) questionnaire. In the pre-COVID period the sample had 342 participants, 64.6% females and in the COVID period 322 students participated, 71.4% females. The study of differences was carried out by the Mann-Whitney U test. The interpretation of the statistical inference was performed for a significance level≤0.05. RESULTS: There was an increase in the number of symptomatic cases in the COVID period without statistical evidence of differences in the frequency of symptoms reported in the two periods. The dimensions "somatic sensations" and "cognitive performance" were the typology of symptoms that most contributed to visual complaints with near vision. There was a significantly different symptomatic behaviour between genders in the period of confinement (p = 0.001), worsening in females and improving in males. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that females and males exposed to digital environments, over time, may exhibit different symptomatic behaviour. Our results suggest that boys adapt more quickly than girls. Factors that predispose to these changes, aetiology and potential intervention actions still need further study.

Factor structure of the convergence insufficiency symptom survey questionnaire.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the factorial structure of the Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey questionnaire with 15 items, in order to identify latent dimensions that can contribute to a more focused implementation. The questionnaire was self-administered in paper by 183 university students, in the age span of 18 to 30. Both Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure and Bartlett's sphericity test were performed to ensure the validity of the factorization. In order to analyze the principal components, factors which obtained eigenvalues greater than 1 were chosen. The extraction of factors was performed after computing a Promax rotation and a Kaiser criterion. In each extracted factor, the internal consistency was used to prove its reliability. Bartlett's sphericity test was statistically significant (p <0.001), and the Both Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test was 0.89, confirming the factorization of this instrument. Exploratory factor analysis followed by a Promax rotation and scree plots graphic, extracted three factors that explained 62.1% of the total variance. The composition of each factor suggests the following meanings: Factor 1 (somatic sensation) includes 8 of 15 items; Factor 2 (impaired vision) includes 3 of 15 items; Factor 3 (cognitive performance) includes 4 of 15 items. Cronbach's alpha coefficient demonstrated good internal consistency (α> 0.75) in three dimensions. The multivariate statistical analysis of the Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey revealed a three-factor structure, so new forms of questionnaire analysis can be designed in order to obtain gains in the management of a symptomatic patient, using 3 subscores, one for each factor, instead of a total score. The factorial structure of the questionnaire can be used with a high level of confidence in future investigations, which aim to assess which dimensions are most affected in each type of visual changes and develop more targeted therapeutic performances.