Purchase this article with an account.
Phillip J Buckhurst, Muhammad Afzam Shah Bin Abdul Rahim, Christine Purslow, Hetal D Buckhurst; Investigating the influence of using smart devices on the ocular accommodative response. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018;59(9):2945.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Despite the ubiquity of smart devices little is known about their effect on the ocular accommodative response (AR). Given the significant variation in the display specifications of smart devices it is likely that the AR varies between devices. The study firstly examines how AR varies when viewing standardised targets on different smart devices and secondly examines the effect of varying target designs on AR.
In this prospective, repeated measures study AR was investigated during two separate experiments utilizing the same protocol. For the first experiment, evaluation of AR was preformed when participants viewed a single near target (veranda N5 letters) on three different platforms (paper, smartphone and smartwatch). During the second experiment participants viewed three different targets (Maltese cross, N5 letters and N20 letters) on a single platform. AR was recorded in real time using the WAM-5500 (Grand Seiko Co. Ltd., Hiroshima, Japan) with a badal lens system. The platforms were mounted on a motorised flipper system allowing accommodation demand to be altered between 0 and 3 dioptres. AR metrics were derived using sigmoidal regression curves from the accommodative response stimulus curve.
Fifty-eight participants (26 males) with a median age of 21 years (Q1=19 and Q3=26) were assessed. Accommodative lag was reduced when subjects viewed the target on the smartwatch when compared to the paper (Z=2.765,p=0.017) and smartphone (Z=2.956,p=0.009). Accommodative latency was slower with both the smartphone (Z=-4.215, p<0.0005) and smartwatch (Z=-4.496, p<0.0005) relative to the paper platform. Accommodative lag was reduced when viewing the N5 letters in comparison with the N20 letters (Z=-2.670, p=0.023) and Maltese cross (Z=3.623, p=0.001). Accommodative latency was faster with the N20 letters (Z=2.435, p=0.045) relative to the N5 target.
The results from this study demonstrated differences in AR when viewing a letter target on paper, smartphone and smartwatch. Furthermore, the type of target that is displayed on a smartphone is shown to influence both accommodative lag and latency.
This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2018 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, April 29 - May 3, 2018.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only