DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Accommodative System according to the Material and Font Size of Near Visual Media

근거리 시각매체의 재질과 글자크기에 따른 조절시스템의 비교

  • Received : 2014.04.24
  • Accepted : 2014.06.18
  • Published : 2014.06.30

Abstract

Purpose: This study was conducted to compare and analyze the accommodative system (accommodative response and accommodative lag) according to the material and font size of near visual media that we often encounter in daily life. Methods: Forty adult men and women aged 20 to 30 who not had specific ocular diseases and refractive surgery experience were examined to measure and compare the accommodative response according to the material of near visual media (print paper, newspaper, magazine, the I-Phone, LCD monitor) and font size (6, 8, 10, 12) by using both eyes open-view auto-refractometer. Results: The accommodative stimulus was $2.28{\pm}0.11D$ and the accommodative response was $1.66{\pm}0.30D$. The accommodative lag namely the difference between accommodative stimulus and accommodative response was $0.62{\pm}0.28D$. The accommodative response according to material of visual media using LCD monitor was $1.35{\pm}0.26D$ (p=0.00) and using the I-Phone was $1.55{\pm}0.25D$ (p=0.04). Both of them were statistically significant lower. The accommodative lag using LCD monitor was $0.93{\pm}0.24D$ (p=0.00) and using the I-Phone was $0.73{\pm}0.25D$ (p=0.04) and they were statistically significant higher. The accommodative response and accommodative lag according to font size were not statistically significant (p>0.05). Conclusions: During near working, the accommodative system was more affected by material than font size of visual media. Especially, visual media of non-luminous material (print paper, newspaper, magazine) are considered fewer burdens on eyes than luminous material (I-Phone, LCD monitor) in terms of accommodative system.

목적: 본 연구는 일상생활 속에서 흔히 접할 수 있는 근거리 시각매체의 재질과 글자크기에 따른 조절시스템(조절반응과 조절래그)을 비교 분석하고자 하였다. 방법: 특별한 안질환 및 굴절교정 수술경험이 없는 20~30세 성인 남녀 40명을 대상으로 시각매체의 재질(프린트용지, 신문용지, 잡지용지, 스마트폰, LCD 모니터)과 글자크기(6, 8, 10, 12)에 따른 조절반응을 양안 개방형 자동굴절계를 사용하여 측정 후 비교하였다. 결과: 실제 조절자극 유효굴절력은 $2.28{\pm}0.11D$이고 실제 조절반응 유효굴절력은 $1.66{\pm}0.30D$로 그 차이인 조절래그는 $0.62{\pm}0.28D$였다. 시각매체의 재질에 따른 조절반응은 LCD 모니터를 사용한 경우 $1.35{\pm}0.26D$(p=0.00), 스마트폰을 사용한 경우 $1.55{\pm}0.25D$(p=0.04)로서 통계적으로 유의하게 낮은 조절반응을 보였고 조절래그는 LCD 모니터를 사용한 경우 $0.93{\pm}0.24D$(p=0.00), 스마트폰을 사용한 경우 $0.73{\pm}0.25D$(p=0.04)로서 통계적으로 유의하게 큰 조절래그를 보였다. 글자크기에 따른 조절반응과 조절래그는 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보이지 않았다(p>0.05). 결론: 근거리작업 시 조절시스템은 시각매체의 글자크기보다는 시각매체의 재질에 따라 더 큰 영향을 받으며, 특히 비발광체 재질의 시각매체(프린트용지, 신문용지, 잡지용지)는 발광체 재질의 시각매체(스마트폰, LCD 모니터)보다 조절시스템의 관점에서 눈에 부담을 더 적게 주는 것으로 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Grisham JD, Simons HD. Refractive error and the reading process: a literature analysis. J Am Optom Assoc. 1986;57(1):44-55.
  2. Collins M, Davis B, Atchison D. VDT screen reflections and accommodation response. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1994;14(2):193-198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.1994.tb00108.x
  3. Culhane HM, Winn B. Dynamic accommodation and myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40(9):1968-1974.
  4. Kim JD, Kim TH, Jeon IC. A study of comparison between refractive errors by fixation distance variation with Nvision (open-view type) Auto-refractor and refractive error with canon (internal fixation target type) Auto-refractor. J Korean Oph Opt Soc. 2011;16(4):433-438.
  5. Bae SH, Kwak HW. Comparison between accommodative response change on the full vision correction and low vision correction. J Korean Oph Opt Soc. 2012;17(1):75-81.
  6. Ciuffreda KJ, Rosenfield M, Rosen J, Azimi A, Ong E. Accommodative responses to naturalistic stimuli. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1990;10(2):168-174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.1990.tb00971.x
  7. Sheedy JE, Hayes JR, Engle J. Is all asthenopia the same? Optom Vis Sci. 2003;80(11):732-739. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-200311000-00008
  8. Human Factors Society. American National Standard for Human Factors Engineering of Visual Display Terminal Workstations : ANSI/HFS Standard No 100-1988 paperback, 1st Ed. Human Factors Society, 1988;987.
  9. Kundart J, Tai YC, Hayes JR, Gietzen J, Sheedy J. Realtime objective measurement of accommodation while reading. J Behav Optom. 2011;22(5):130-134.
  10. Yeo AC, Kang KK, Tang W. Accommodative stimulus response curve of emmetropes and myopes. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2006;35(12):868-874.
  11. Benjamin WJ. Borish's Clinical Refraction, 2nd Ed. London: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006;93-144.
  12. Millodot M. Dictionary of optometry and visual science, 6th Ed. London: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2004;3.
  13. Sung PJ. Optometry, 5th Ed. Seoul: Daehakseorim, 2005;175-178, 292-295.
  14. Han GA, Hwang JH, Mah KC. Objective measurement of accommodative responses with open-field autorefractor. Korean J Vis Sci. 2009;11(1):35-44.
  15. Rosenfield M, Portello JK, Blustein GH, Jang C. Comparison of clinical techniques to assess the near accommodative response. Optom Vis Sci. 1996;73(6):382-388. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-199606000-00005
  16. Lee JH. Ophthalmology, 9th Ed. Seoul: Iljokak, 2011;404.
  17. Kundart J, Tai YC, Hayes JR, Sheedy J. Word recognition and the accommodative response to desktop & handheld video displays, 2010. http://bcis.pacificu.edu/interface/?p=2857(18 March 2014).
  18. Sreenivasan V, Aslakson E, Kornaus A, Thibos LN. Retinal image quality during accommodation in adult myopic eyes. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90(11):1292-1303. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000000068

Cited by

  1. Changes in Accommodative Function after Reading with Paper Book and E-book on Tablet PC vol.22, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2017.22.2.183
  2. Evaluation of Visual Function under Mesopic Conditions in Individuals Wearing Cosmetic Soft Contact Lenses vol.23, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2018.23.4.351
  3. Ocular and visual discomfort associated with smartphones, tablets and computers: what we do and do not know pp.08164622, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12851
  4. 녹내장 환자의 의료이용에 대한 5년간(2008-2012)의 변화추이 -한국의료패널 자료를 활용하여- vol.9, pp.10, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15207/jkcs.2018.9.10.433
  5. Smartphone Use and Effects on Tear Film, Blinking and Binocular Vision vol.45, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1080/02713683.2019.1663542