Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025
Dynamics of Accommodative Behavior Under Prolonged Viewing of Electronic Devices in Young Adults.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sah Raman Prasad, Meyer Dawn, Kollbaum Pete
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the dynamic characteristics of accommodative behavior in non-myopic and myopic young adults under prolonged viewing of electronic devices.
METHODS: Sixteen subjects aged 18 to 25 were recruited: 8 non-myopes (-0.25 to +2.0 diopters [D]), and 8 myopes (-0.50 to -6.0 D). Refractive state was assessed using an open-field autorefractor in dynamic mode. A comprehensive evaluation of accommodative behavior included (1) pre-task tonic accommodation (TA), computed as the difference in refraction before and after 5 minutes of dark adaptation, (2) refractive state during a 20-minute sustained near task at 25 cm on an iPhone, and (3) post-task adaptation over 3 minutes, under open-loop (open-loop accommodative adaptation [OLAA]) and closed-loop (near work-induced transient myopia [NITM]) conditions. Data were collected in two sessions for OLAA and NITM.
RESULTS: Pre-task TA (mean ± SD) did not differ significantly between refractive groups (P = 0.74 and 0.05 for the 2 sessions): non-myopes 0.15 ± 0.33 and 0.16 ± 0.22 D; myopes 0.10 ± 0.12 and -0.03 ± 0.08 D in the OLAA and NITM sessions, respectively. In both groups, refractive state and pupil size remained stable throughout the 20-minute near task, with no significant main effects of time, group, or time × group interaction (linear mixed-effects analysis, P ≥ 0.05). Subjects exhibited a typical accommodative lag of approximately 1.00 D (mean ± SD, non-myopes = 1.02 ± 0.06 and 1.08 ± 0.05 D; myopes = 1.09 ± 0.06 and 1.09 ± 0.08 D, in the OLAA and NITM sessions, respectively). Post task, NITM was more commonly observed than OLAA.
CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged near tasks did not significantly affect accommodative behavior of participants in either refractive group under open- or closed-loop conditions. Although accommodative adaptation was observed post-task, no systematic relationship was found between its magnitude or decay and refractive status.
METHODS: Sixteen subjects aged 18 to 25 were recruited: 8 non-myopes (-0.25 to +2.0 diopters [D]), and 8 myopes (-0.50 to -6.0 D). Refractive state was assessed using an open-field autorefractor in dynamic mode. A comprehensive evaluation of accommodative behavior included (1) pre-task tonic accommodation (TA), computed as the difference in refraction before and after 5 minutes of dark adaptation, (2) refractive state during a 20-minute sustained near task at 25 cm on an iPhone, and (3) post-task adaptation over 3 minutes, under open-loop (open-loop accommodative adaptation [OLAA]) and closed-loop (near work-induced transient myopia [NITM]) conditions. Data were collected in two sessions for OLAA and NITM.
RESULTS: Pre-task TA (mean ± SD) did not differ significantly between refractive groups (P = 0.74 and 0.05 for the 2 sessions): non-myopes 0.15 ± 0.33 and 0.16 ± 0.22 D; myopes 0.10 ± 0.12 and -0.03 ± 0.08 D in the OLAA and NITM sessions, respectively. In both groups, refractive state and pupil size remained stable throughout the 20-minute near task, with no significant main effects of time, group, or time × group interaction (linear mixed-effects analysis, P ≥ 0.05). Subjects exhibited a typical accommodative lag of approximately 1.00 D (mean ± SD, non-myopes = 1.02 ± 0.06 and 1.08 ± 0.05 D; myopes = 1.09 ± 0.06 and 1.09 ± 0.08 D, in the OLAA and NITM sessions, respectively). Post task, NITM was more commonly observed than OLAA.
CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged near tasks did not significantly affect accommodative behavior of participants in either refractive group under open- or closed-loop conditions. Although accommodative adaptation was observed post-task, no systematic relationship was found between its magnitude or decay and refractive status.