Accommodation response to Chinese and Latin characters in Chinese‐illiterate young adults

Abstract

Background: Differences in accommodation when reading Chinese, as compared to Latin, characters have been suggested to have a role in the higher prevalence of myopia in some Asian countries. Yeo and colleagues (Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 156-163) found that, in Chineseliterate children, accommodation was marginally more accurate (by less than 0.05 D), when reading Chinese text. This was attributed to the additional cognitive demand associated with interpreting the more complex Chinese symbols. The present study compared responses to single Chinese and Latin characters, while controlling for cognitive demand. Methods: The monocular accommodative response was measured in Chinese-illiterate adults (10 emmetropes, mean spherical equivalent: -0.07 ± 0.42 D, age: 29.9 ± 4.2 years; 11 myopes, mean spherical equivalent: -4.28 ± 2.84 D, age: 31.7 ± 4.6 years) with an open-field autorefractor. Four Chinese and three Latin characters (approximately 1.15 degrees subtense) were individually presented on a display screen one metre away from the subject, while their vergence was varied over the range zero to 5.00 D using spectacle trial lenses. The slope and the accommodative error index (AEI) were calculated from the accommodative stimulus/response curves (ASRC). Results: No statistically significant differences were found between refractive groups or among characters within the same refractive group in ARSC slopes (Latin: 0.87 ± 0.14 for myopes versus 0.81 ± 0.12 for emmetropes; Chinese: 0.84 ± 0.12 for myopes versus 0.85 ± 0.12 for emmetropes). No significant differences were found between characters in accommodative error index either (Latin, 0.78 ± 0.42 D for myopes versus 1.15 ± 0.72 D for emmetropes; Chinese, 0.74 ± 0.37 D for myopes versus 1.17 ± 0.83 D for emmetropes). However, accommodative error indices and accommodative errors were significantly higher for emmetropes. Conclusion: Under controlled cognitive demand, Chinese and Latin characters elicited similar responses in both individual refractive groups. This study fails to support the hypothesis that development of myopia in some Asian populations is associated with larger lags of accommodation when reading or viewing Chinese characters.

Effect of Defocus Incorporated Multiple Segments Spectacle Lens Wear on Visual Function in Myopic Chinese Children

“…Myopes have been generally found to have greater accommodative lag than nonmyopes. 48 – 50 In the present study, the children in both DIMS (lag at baseline of 0.97 D) and SV groups (1.03 D) had a larger mean lag. A recent investigation also reported similar values in Chinese myopic children (mean, 0.97D), but it included a wider range of age groups (5–13 years).…”

“…A recent investigation also reported similar values in Chinese myopic children (mean, 0.97D), but it included a wider range of age groups (5–13 years). 50 These findings indicate that Chinese myopic children tend to have larger accommodative lag than Caucasians (0.43 D). 51 , 52 However, whether Chinese myopic children exhibit greater annual reduction rate in lag is not known: further investigation is needed.…”

Evaluating secondary input devices to support an automotive touchscreen HMI: A cross-cultural simulator study conducted in the UK and China

“…While factors such as font size and display resolution have been found to improve the legibility and readability of computer-displayed Chinese text (Huang, et al, 2009), there remains a fundamental difference between Chinese pictogram characters and the Latin alphabets used in the UK. In particular, individual Chinese characters are more visually complex and demand closer scrutiny to interpret their meaning (Radhakrishnan et al, 2015). This is likely to be reflected as an increase in 'reading' time in China, and may therefore account for the extended visual demand (exhibited by Chinese participants for some tasks) that were evident during this comparative study.…”

Myopia: is the nature‐nurture debate finally over?

“…Further, myopia is highly prevalent in young adults of Malay and Indian origin in Singapore, who are taught in English, and who rarely use Chinese characters . The conclusion that print is not a significant factor is supported by a recent analysis of accommodative responses to Chinese and Latin characters in Chinese‐illiterate young adults …”