PubMed · 5750068
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A Suzumura. 1968. [Environment and asthenopia].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5750068/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: There is a body of scientific literature examining functional changes in vision due to video display terminals (VDTs). The aim of our study was to determine the relationship of functional visual strain and symptoms of asthenopia and to evaluate the association between subjective and objective indicators of visual strain. MATERIAL/METHODS: Four hundred four office workers with and without involvement in VDT work were included in the study. To evaluate visual strain we used a questionnaire for subjective complaints, evaluated the main ophthalmologic indicators, and measured psycho-physiological indicators. RESULTS: The questionnaire data showed that 88.5% of the VDT workers complained of various vision disorders. VDT workers who complained of worsened vision, redness of the eyes, eye pain, and diplopia during work were found to show more significant changes in the psycho-physiological indicators objectively reflecting strain of the vision analyzer. In the group of people with symptoms of asthenopia, the differences in the indicators of visual sensomotoric reaction, constancy of clear vision, and changes in the periods of clear and unclear vision were statistically reliably greater than in people without symptoms of visual strain. CONCLUSIONS: The subjective perception of visual strain related to VDT work was confirmed by ophthalmologic and psycho-physiological measurements. Changes in ocular and psycho-physiological function before and at the end of the workday are a good objective index of visual and central nervous system strain.
PURPOSE: To determine whether eyestrain symptoms predict eye conditions in 6-year-old children. DESIGN: Cross-sectional population-based study. METHODS: Reports of eyestrain symptoms were sought in parental questionnaires; 1740 children (79% response) underwent eye examinations (visual acuity, cover testing, cycloplegic autorefraction, and fundus examination). RESULTS: Eyestrain information was available for 1448 children; 220 (15.2%) reported eyestrain symptoms, including 60 (3.4%) who reported near work-associated headaches. Most children (82.3%) had a normal eye examination, while refractive errors, amblyopia, and strabismus were found in 15.0%, 3.6%, and 7.3%, respectively. Corresponding rates for children without eyestrain were 9.9%, 1.4%, and 1.8%, respectively. Moreover, 78.7% of children with refractive errors, 68% with amblyopia, and 58% with strabismus reported no eyestrain. CONCLUSIONS: Most children complaining of eyestrain had a normal eye examination; whereas most children with refractive error, amblyopia, or strabismus were free of eyestrain, making this complaint a poor marker of eye conditions in young children.
PURPOSE: Fixation disparity measurement as a tool for analyzing the binocular visual system has taken very different approaches in the United States and Central Europe. In the United States, testing has primarily followed a motor approach, and resulting management has followed parameters established by graphical analysis closely. In German-speaking countries, a strong sensory-based analysis has been popular for decades, utilizing equipment rarely seen in the United States. Management in these countries has been almost exclusively directed toward prismatic prescription. METHODS: This report examines the instrumentation, underlying strategies, and management used in both the motor and sensory approaches to fixation disparity analysis. Testing protocols and management options are detailed for each approach. CONCLUSION: Although both approaches agree that fixation disparity has the potential to reveal a more realistic view of binocular system functioning under normal viewing conditions than other systems of analysis, the approaches diverge in some very important ways, particularly in the understanding of the development of fixation disparity and its management. Whereas the philosophy underlying testing and management of the motor-based approach will be familiar to most clinicians in the United States, the sensory approach offers a very different perspective. It views the development of fixation disparity as a shift of correspondence within Panum's area. In effect, this may be thought of as the oxymoron "a normal, anomalous correspondence"; that is, a shift of correspondence occurring in nonstrabismic patients. Management in these cases is based on accurate prism prescription to re-establish bifoveal fusion.