Accommodative Accuracy to Video Display Monitors.

Wick, Bruce; Morse, Stephen E.

doi:10.1097/00006324-200212001-00413

Cited by 28 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is difficult to account for the report of increased blur when viewing the text since at least to the experimenters, the reading material, which was presented on a flat screen monitor, appeared to be reasonably clear. Previous studies have noted only minimal differences in either the accommodation or vergence responses between hard copy and computer viewing 4,5,9–11 . As noted earlier, non‐visual effects may play a role here, with printed materials being the format that subjects are most familiar with when reading, even in this relatively young population.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…However, it is important to identify whether these symptoms are specific to computer operation, or are simply a manifestation of performing a sustained near‐vision task. Wick and Morse 4 measured the accommodative response in five emmetropic subjects when viewing either a VDT or printed copy of the same text displayed on the monitor. They reported that four subjects showed an increased lag of accommodation to the VDT (mean increase = 0.33 D) when compared with the hard copy condition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparison of symptoms after viewing text on a computer screen and hardcopy

Chu¹,

Rosenfield²,

Portello³

et al. 2010

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of symptoms after viewing text on a computer screen and hardcopy

Chu¹,

Rosenfield²,

Portello³

et al. 2010

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the evidence for a difference in the AR between computer and hard‐copy tasks is not compelling. For example, Wick and Morse 41 used an objective infra‐red optometer to measure the accommodative response (AR) in five emmetropic subjects when viewing either a VDT or printed copy of the same text displayed on the monitor. They reported that four subjects showed an increased lag of accommodation to the VDT (mean increase = 0.33 D) when compared with the hard copy condition.…”

Section: Oculomotor Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer vision syndrome: a review of ocular causes and potential treatments

Rosenfield

2011

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

526

405

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Computer vision syndrome (CVS) is the combination of eye and vision problems associated with the use of computers. In modern western society the use of computers for both vocational and avocational activities is almost universal. However, CVS may have a significant impact not only on visual comfort but also occupational productivity since between 64% and 90% of computer users experience visual symptoms which may include eyestrain, headaches, ocular discomfort, dry eye, diplopia and blurred vision either at near or when looking into the distance after prolonged computer use. This paper reviews the principal ocular causes for this condition, namely oculomotor anomalies and dry eye. Accommodation and vergence responses to electronic screens appear to be similar to those found when viewing printed materials, whereas the prevalence of dry eye symptoms is greater during computer operation. The latter is probably due to a decrease in blink rate and blink amplitude, as well as increased corneal exposure resulting from the monitor frequently being positioned in primary gaze. However, the efficacy of proposed treatments to reduce symptoms of CVS is unproven. A better understanding of the physiology underlying CVS is critical to allow more accurate diagnosis and treatment. This will enable practitioners to optimize visual comfort and efficiency during computer operation.

show abstract

“…Several studies supported the hypothesis that reading from screen rather than from hard copy is less efficient and promotes visual fatigue but found no difference in average accommodative response during reading between the two modes of text presentation. In contrast, Wick and Morse showed that the lag of accommodation increases when participants read from computer screens compared to hard copy text. Some studies have also revealed abnormal near triads of accommodation – convergence – myosis …”

mentioning

confidence: 86%