Changes in blink rate and ocular symptoms during different reading tasks

Abstract

BackgroundReading from tablets is fundamental to modern culture. This study measured differences in the blink rate and symptoms of ocular discomfort in healthy participants during reading from a tablet and a paper book.MethodsForty healthy, normal males subjects were recruited for this study. Subjects were video recorded during reading a text presented on an electronic device (9.7 inch tablet) and a hard copy format, for 15 min. Ocular discomfort experienced during reading was scored using a visual analog scale. Each participant was examined performing one of the two tasks (randomized) on one visit and the other on a separate visit (crossover design). All subjects were evaluated before the reading tasks and every 5 min during 15 min of reading.ResultsThe mean ± standard deviation blink rate was 19.74 ± 9.12/min at baseline. The blink rate decreased significantly under both reading conditions (to 11.35 ± 10.20 and 14.93 ± 10.90/min when reading from a book and a tablet, respectively). There was no significant difference in the blink rate over 15 min during either type of reading. The mean discomfort symptom scores were 148 for the book and 134 for the tablet; both were significantly higher than baseline. A gradual increase in symptoms was found every 5 min during both types of reading.ConclusionThe study confirmed that both the blink rate and ocular discomfort symptoms were strongly affected during performance of close visual tasks. Both reading conditions affected blinking; this may interfere with tear film dynamics. Such effects were reflected in the immediate development of ocular symptoms, which increased significantly during both types of reading.

High Prevalence of Abnormal Ocular Surface Tests in a Healthy Pediatric Population

“…In the same way, some studies have demonstrated that reading conditions or close visual tasks may decrease spontaneous eyeblink rate, which ranges from 10 to 15 blinks/min. 3 , 27 , 28 Accordingly, blink frequency while reading on paper and screen rates were reduced compared to spontaneous blink rate in our study. Although blink frequencies while reading have been studied, no normal values for these measurements have been established in adults, nor children.…”

“…Koslowe et al, 29 reported a blink frequency while reading on screen of 17.15 blinks/min and blink frequency while reading on paper of 15.42 blinks/minute. Abusharha et al 28 found a blink frequency while reading a book of 11.35 ± 10.20 blinks/min and a blink frequency while reading on screen of 14.93 ± 10.90 blinks/min. All these study results coincide with our results, taking into account blink frequency while reading on screen was always greater than blink frequency while reading on paper.…”

<p>Dry Eye Disease Association with Computer Exposure Time Among Subjects with Computer Vision Syndrome</p>

“… 13 As for the accumulated exposure time; We analyzed studies in which it was concluded, like us, that a longer exposure time results in greater visual symptoms. 20 We were able to measure and evaluate TBUT and damage to the ocular surface and we disagreed with Diaz et al, who mention that electronic devices do not produce organic damage, but rather influence the appearance of fatigue or asthenic symptoms if used in an appropriate manner inadequate; 21 for which we emphasize that the mechanism by which the images are observed in the VDT, unintentionally reduces blinking, producing changes in lacrimal dynamics, 22 , 23 decreases the expression of the meibomian gland and prevents an adequate distribution of the lipoid layer, contributing thus to the development of DED, damage to the ocular surface and eyelid disorders. 23 , 24 …”

Dheergayu: Clinical Depression Monitoring Assistant

“…According to [23] depressed people have a low blink rate. It has been reported that the normal spontaneous blink rate is between 12 and 15/min [24]. By getting these mentioned points this feature will generate a report that indicates the depression rate by using the blink rate.…”