Optometry (St. Louis, Mo.) · 2003
Accommodative response to PRIO Computer Vision Tester versus printed text.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Sorkin Richard E, Reich Lewis N, Pizzimenti Joseph
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Video display terminals (VDTs) have Gaussian display characteristics. Research suggests that patients accommodate differently to Gaussian images. In the present study, we asked if the accommodative response to the PRIO Computer Vision Tester (a Gaussian image) is different than the accommodative response to a Monocular Estimation Method (MEM) printed text target.
METHOD: A normally sighted prepresbyopic group of subjects (N = 60) was recruited from the student body of Nova Southeastern University. Low neutral retinoscopy was performed on each subject at a distance of 50 cm. using both the PRIO vision tester and an MEM target.
RESULTS: The PRIO vision tester and the printed text provided essentially the same measures of accommodative response. In addition, the luminance of the PRIO dropped by nearly 40% over the course of 1 hour of intermittent use.
CONCLUSION: The PRIO vision tester and traditional nearpoint retinoscopy provided essentially the same measures of accommodative response in prepresbyopic subjects. Further studies should be considered to evaluate whether the change in luminance of the PRIO system has any effect on the measurement of accommodative response.
METHOD: A normally sighted prepresbyopic group of subjects (N = 60) was recruited from the student body of Nova Southeastern University. Low neutral retinoscopy was performed on each subject at a distance of 50 cm. using both the PRIO vision tester and an MEM target.
RESULTS: The PRIO vision tester and the printed text provided essentially the same measures of accommodative response. In addition, the luminance of the PRIO dropped by nearly 40% over the course of 1 hour of intermittent use.
CONCLUSION: The PRIO vision tester and traditional nearpoint retinoscopy provided essentially the same measures of accommodative response in prepresbyopic subjects. Further studies should be considered to evaluate whether the change in luminance of the PRIO system has any effect on the measurement of accommodative response.