01 Clinical Value of Using distant imaging Screens for Reading and Learning:
Using distant imaging screens for reading does not affect reading efficiency or increase visual fatigue. It can help prevent the decline in vision caused by close-range reading of printed materials.
Purpose Exploring the effectiveness and comfort of using a distant imaging screen for reading and learning.
Method Prospective crossover test In July 2021, a total of 39 adult participants were recruited through Beijing Tongren Hospital affiliated to Capital Medical University. Among them, there were 16 males and 23 females, with an average age of (26.4±4.5) years. A random grouping method was used to determine that 19 participants would read printed materials, while 20 would read from distant imaging screens. They each viewed the digital correction table, which was presented on paper and displayed on a distant imaging screen, with a 2-hour break in between. Reading speed, reading efficiency, and reading accuracy have been recorded. The changes in visual acuity (logarithm of the minimum resolution angle), diopter measurement, critical flicker fusion frequency (CFF) , visual fatigue score, and stereoacuity before and after reading have been recorded. Quantitative data were compared via paired T-test.
Result The reading speed, reading accuracy, and reading efficiency of the subjects when reading printed materials were (41.2±11.6) groups/min., 80.7%±13.3%, and (32.4±7.4) groups/min., respectively. The reading speed, reading accuracy, and reading efficiency of the subjects when reading from a distant imaging screen were (41.7±11.1) groups/min., 76.4%±12.6%, and (31.1±6.4) groups/min, respectively. The difference in reading speed (t=-0.462, P=0.648) and reading efficiency (t=1.954, P=0.058) is not statistically significant, while the difference in reading accuracy is statistically significant (t=2.226, P=0.032). After reading printed materials, the subjects' visual acuity of the right eye and left eye decreased by 0.014±0.032 and 0.013±0.050, respectively. However, after reading from a distant imaging screen, the subjects' visual acuity of the right eye and left eye improved by 0.007±0.033 and 0.007±0.036, respectively. These differences are statistically significant (right eye t=2.592, P=0.013; left eye t=2.154, P=0.038). After reading printed materials, the subjects' degrees of myopia in the right eye and left eye increased by (0.07±0.29) D and (0.06±0.24) D respectively. After reading from a distant imaging screen, their degrees of myopia in the right eye and left eye increased by (0.01±0.29) D and (0.02±0.28) D respectively. After reading printed materials, their critical flicker fusion (CFF) decreased by (0.1±1.0) Hz, while after reading from a distant imaging screen, it increased by (0.3±1.2) Hz. After reading printed materials and reading from the distant imaging screen, the subjective ratings of visual fatigue for the subjects increased, but the difference between the two did not show any statistically significant (both P > 0.05).
Conclusion Using distant imaging screens for reading does not affect reading efficiency or increase visual fatigue. It can help prevent the decline in vision caused by close-range reading of printed materials.
02 Preliminary Study on the Preventive Effect of Desktop Virtual Reality Display on Digital Eye Fatigue:
The use of desktop virtual displays can prevent digital eye fatigue caused by watching videos at close range, which may be related to the lack of near-sightedness adjustment required during viewing.
The clinical value of using far-field light screens for reading and learning.pdf