Abstract
Purpose :
To investigate the correlation of binocular vision parameters measured through both conventional and virtual reality (VR)-based examinations, and to evaluate the feasibility of using VR for binocular vision measurement.
Methods :
Study enrolled healthy participants aged 20-40 with corrected visual acuity ≥ 20/20. Participants underwent two-stage binocular visual function assessment, using a phoropter in the first stage and VR in the second, with a one-day interval. The assessments included evaluating phoria at distances of 6 m and 40 cm, sequentially using methods such as the von Graefe phoria test (VG) and Maddox rod phoria test (MR), and fusional vergence ranges (FVR). Additionally, participants were asked to complete a Visual Symptom Questionnaire (VSQ) and a Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) before and after the measurements. Collected data underwent correlation analysis using SPSS software.
Results :
Thirty-five participants, 12 males (34.3%) and 23 females (65.7%), average age 21.7 ± 3.6 years, were recruited. At 6 m, VG phoria was 2.8 ± 3.0Δ EXO, MR showed 2.1 ± 5.0Δ EXO, and VR exhibited 0.4 ± 3.5Δ EXO. In Figure 1, VR significantly correlated with VG (r=0.733, p<0.001) and MR (r=0.806, p<0.001). At 40 cm, VG exhibited 8.0 ± 6.2Δ EXO, MR showed 6.2 ± 8.6Δ EXO, and VR indicated 11.0 ± 7.6Δ EXO. A significant correlation existed between VR and both VG (r=0.485, P=0.003) and MR (r=0.487, P=0.003). In the FVR test, the distance BI break point (10.69 ± 3.56Δ vs 10.20 ± 2.54Δ; r = 0.380, P=0.024) and recovery point (4.97 ± 3.08Δ vs 7.04 ± 2.89Δ; r = 0.340, P=0.046) with the phoropter significantly correlated with VR results. Additionally, there was a significant correlation between the near BU recovery point with the phoropter and VR (0.97 ± 1.10Δ vs 1.78 ± 1.78Δ; r=0.336, P=0.048). In Table 1, VSQ results using the phoropter showed no significant difference. Similarly, for VR testing, both VSQ and SSQ after VR testing revealed no significant difference.
Conclusions :
Using VR for phoria and some FVR tests significantly correlates with conventional examinations. Additionally, testing time is halved, with no limitations on the size of the testing environment. VR-based testing also avoids inducing visual symptoms or motion sickness, demonstrating the feasibility of VR for visual function assessments.
This abstract was presented at the 2024 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, WA, May 5-9, 2024.