Comparative Study of Digital Chart and Print Chart in Measuring of Accommodation Amplitude with Push up Method

Document Type : Original article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Optometry, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 MSc in Optometry, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 Medical Student, Students’ Scientific Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background and Aims: Nowadays, appearance of the digital charts and increase of its abilities in comparison with the print charts has resulted in the more usage of these charts in optometric clinics.  But, in measuring of the accommodation amplitude, the print chart has not been replaced by the digital charts yet. Due to the abilities of digital charts, compared with print charts, a question should be investigated whether the print charts can be replaced by the digital charts for measuring the accommodation amplitude.
Materials and Methods: In the current study, eye accommodation amplitudes of 63 patients in the age of 15-35 years were measured using push up method and five different chart optotypes. For this purpose, for each optotype, first a print chart and then the digital chart installed on the IPhone 7 Plus to measure the accommodation amplitude were used.
To analyze the data, using SPSS (version 24), descriptive statistics like mean, standard deviation, variance, and standard error of measures were calculated. Also, T-test was run.
Results: The results showed that the difference between the mean of the accommodation amplitude measured by digital chart and that of print chart is about 4.7% in 20/20 optotype. This difference increased to 5.5% in 20/50 optotype. The results of the T-test analysis showed that there is a meaningful difference between the accommodation amplitude measured by the two digital and print charts.
Conclusion: According to the results of the study, the accommodation amplitudes measured by digital chart and print chart do not seem to be equal in general, which can be due to the environment light intensity, the chart contrast, the image refreshing speed, and/or other reasons.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Kingsnorth A. Technological enhancements to optometric clinical tests (Doctoral dissertation, Aston University) 2015:66-131.##
  2. Sterner B. Ocular accommodation [dissertation]. [Department of Ophthalmology Institute of Clinical Neuroscience Goteborg University Sweden] 2004:49. ##
  3. Wahlberg Ramsay M. Accommodation: clinical and theoretical investigations. Inst for klinisk neurovetenskap/Dept of Clinical Neuroscience 2011. ##
  4. Remington LA. Clinical Anatomy and Physiology of the Visual System (3: e uppl). St: Louis: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann 2012;93-103. ##
  5. Grosvenor T. Grosvenor TP. Primary care optometry. Elsevier Health Sciences  2007. ##
  6. Rouse MM, Scheiman MM. Development of the Overall Management Plan. Optometric Management of Learning-related Vision Problems 1994;387. ##
  7. Daum KM. Accommodative dysfunction. Documenta Ophthalmologica 1983;55(3):98-177. ##
  8. Rosenfield M. Computer vision syndrome (aka digital eye strain). Optometry 2016;17(1):1-10. ##
  9. Moulakaki AI, Recchioni A. Águila-Carrasco AJD. Esteve-Taboada JJ. Montés-Micó R. Assessing the accommodation response after near visual tasks using different handheld electronic devices. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia 2017;80(1):9-13. ##

10. Bababekova Y, Rosenfield M, Hue JE, Huang RR. Font size and viewing distance of handheld smart phones. Optometry & Vision Science 2011;88(7):7-795. ##

11. Black JM, Jacobs RJ, Phillips G, Chen L,Tan E, Tran A, Tompson  B. An assessment of the iPad as a testing platform for distance visual acuity in adults. BMJ Open 2013:3(6). ##

12. Perera C, Chakrabarti R, Islam FMA, Crowston J. The Eye Phone Study: reliability and accuracy of assessing Snellen visual acuity using smartphone technology. Eye, 2015;29(7):888-894. ##

13. Mathebula SD, Kekana TM, Ledwaba MM, Mushwana DN, Malope NE. A comparison in university students of the amplitude of accommodation determined subjectively. Afr Vision Eye Health 2016;75(1):358-365. ##

14. Taub MB, Shallo-Hoffmann J. A comparison of three clinical tests of accommodation amplitude to Hofstetter’s norm to guide diagnosis and treatment. Optom Vis Dev 2012;43(4):180-190. ##

15. Schatz P, Ybarra V, Leitner D. Validating the accuracy of reaction time assessment on computer-based tablet devices. Assessment 2015;22(4):405-410. ##

16. Burns DH, Evans BJ, Allen PM. Clinical measurement of amplitude of accommodation: a review. Optometry.. 2014;15(3):75-86. ##

17. Koslowe K. Glassman T. Tzanani-Levi C. Shneor E. Accommodative amplitude determination: pull-away versus push-up method. Optom Vis Dev. 2010;41:28-32. ##

18. Ovenseri‑Ogbomo GO, Kudjawu EP, Kio FE, Abu EK. Investigation of amplitude of accommodation among Ghanaian school children. Clin Exp Optom 2012;95:91-187. ##

19. Cronk BC.How to use SPSS®: A step-by-step guide to analysis and interpretation. Routledge 2016. ##

20. Hashemi H, Nabovati P, Khabazkhoob M, Yekta A, Emamian MH, Fotouhi A. Does Hofstetter's equation predict the real amplitude of accommodation in children?  Clin Exp Optom 2018;101(1):123-128. ##

21. Sergienko NM, Nikonenko DP. Measurement of amplitude of accommodation in young persons. Clin Exp Optom. 2015;98(4):61-359. ##

The Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume 8, Issue 3
October 2019
Pages 132-139

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 23 October 2018
  • Revise Date: 16 December 2018
  • Accept Date: 24 December 2018
  • First Publish Date: 23 September 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics