Do standard optometric measures predict binocular coordination during reading?

IF 1.3 4区 心理学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY Journal of Eye Movement Research Pub Date : 2021-01-21 DOI:10.16910/jemr.13.6.6
Joëlle Joss, Stephanie Jainta
{"title":"Do standard optometric measures predict binocular coordination during reading?","authors":"Joëlle Joss, Stephanie Jainta","doi":"10.16910/jemr.13.6.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In reading, binocular eye movements are required for optimal visual processing and thus, in case of asthenopia or reading problems, standard orthoptic and optometric routines check individual binocular vision by a variety of tests. The present study therefore examines the predictive value of such standard measures of heterophoria, accommodative and vergence facility, AC/A-ratio, NPC and symptoms for binocular coordination parameters during read-ing. Binocular eye movements were recorded (EyeLink II) for 65 volunteers during a typical reading task and linear regression analyses related all parameters of binocular coordination to all above-mentioned optometric measures: while saccade disconjugacy was weakly pre-dicted by vergence facility (15% explained variance), vergence facility, AC/A and symp-toms scores predicted vergence drift (31%). Heterophoria, vergence facility and NPC ex-plained 31% of fixation disparity and first fixation duration showed minor relations to symp-toms (18%). In sum, we found only weak to moderate relationships, with expected, selective associations: dynamic parameter related to optometric tests addressing vergence dynamics, whereas the static parameter (fixation disparity) related mainly to heterophoria. Most sur-prisingly, symptoms were only loosely related to vergence drift and fixation duration, re-flecting associations to a dynamic aspect of binocular eye movements in reading and poten-tially non-specific, overall but slight reading deficiency. Thus, the efficiency of optometric tests to predict binocular coordination during reading was low - questioning a simple, straightforward extrapolation of such test results to an overlearned, complex task.</p>","PeriodicalId":15813,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Eye Movement Research","volume":"13 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8019071/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Eye Movement Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.13.6.6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In reading, binocular eye movements are required for optimal visual processing and thus, in case of asthenopia or reading problems, standard orthoptic and optometric routines check individual binocular vision by a variety of tests. The present study therefore examines the predictive value of such standard measures of heterophoria, accommodative and vergence facility, AC/A-ratio, NPC and symptoms for binocular coordination parameters during read-ing. Binocular eye movements were recorded (EyeLink II) for 65 volunteers during a typical reading task and linear regression analyses related all parameters of binocular coordination to all above-mentioned optometric measures: while saccade disconjugacy was weakly pre-dicted by vergence facility (15% explained variance), vergence facility, AC/A and symp-toms scores predicted vergence drift (31%). Heterophoria, vergence facility and NPC ex-plained 31% of fixation disparity and first fixation duration showed minor relations to symp-toms (18%). In sum, we found only weak to moderate relationships, with expected, selective associations: dynamic parameter related to optometric tests addressing vergence dynamics, whereas the static parameter (fixation disparity) related mainly to heterophoria. Most sur-prisingly, symptoms were only loosely related to vergence drift and fixation duration, re-flecting associations to a dynamic aspect of binocular eye movements in reading and poten-tially non-specific, overall but slight reading deficiency. Thus, the efficiency of optometric tests to predict binocular coordination during reading was low - questioning a simple, straightforward extrapolation of such test results to an overlearned, complex task.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
标准视力测量法能否预测阅读过程中的双眼协调性?
在阅读过程中,双眼眼球运动是实现最佳视觉处理的必要条件,因此,在出现弱视或阅读问题时,标准的正视和验光程序会通过各种测试来检查个人的双眼视力。因此,本研究探讨了异视、容纳和辐辏功能、AC/A 比值、NPC 和阅读时双眼协调参数症状等标准测量的预测价值。对 65 名志愿者在典型阅读任务中的双眼眼球运动进行了记录(EyeLink II),并将双眼协调的所有参数与上述所有视力测量指标进行了线性回归分析:辐辏设施对囊卡不协调的预测较弱(解释方差为 15%),而辐辏设施、AC/A 和症状评分则对辐辏偏移有预测作用(31%)。异视、辐辏设施和 NPC 对定点差异的解释率为 31%,首次定点持续时间与 symp-toms 的关系较小(18%)。总之,我们只发现了微弱到中等程度的关系,并具有预期的选择性关联:动态参数与针对辐辏动态的验光测试有关,而静态参数(定点差距)主要与异视有关。最令人惊讶的是,症状只与辐辏漂移和定影持续时间有松散的联系,这再次反映了阅读中双眼眼球运动的动态方面以及潜在的非特异性、整体但轻微的阅读缺陷。因此,视力测试预测阅读过程中双眼协调性的效率很低--这对将此类测试结果简单、直接地推断为过度学习的复杂任务提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
33.30%
发文量
10
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Eye Movement Research is an open-access, peer-reviewed scientific periodical devoted to all aspects of oculomotor functioning including methodology of eye recording, neurophysiological and cognitive models, attention, reading, as well as applications in neurology, ergonomy, media research and other areas,
期刊最新文献
Intelligent Evaluation Method for Design Education and Comparison Research between visualizing Heat-Maps of Class Activation and Eye-Movement. The level of skills involved in an observation-based gait analysis. Effect of Action Video Games in Eye Movement Behavior: A Systematic Review. Persistence of primitive reflexes associated with asymmetries in fixation and ocular motility values. The Observer's Lens: The Impact of Personality Traits and Gaze on Facial Impression Inferences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1