Ocular and visual discomfort associated with smartphones, tablets and computers: what we do and do not know

REFERENCES

• Deloitte. Mobile Customer Survey 2017: The Australian cut. 2017. [Cited 10 Apr 2018.] Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/deloitte-au-tmt-mobile-consumer-survey-2017-211117-final.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Communications and Media Authority. Aussie teens and kids online. 2016. [Cited 10 Apr 2018.] Available at: https://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engage-blogs/Research-snapshots/Aussie-teens-and-kids-online.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Communications and Media Authority. Communications report 2013–14 series: Report 1—Australians’ digital lives. 2015. [Cited 10 Apr 2018.] Available at: https://www.acma.gov.au/~/media/Research%20and%20Analysis/Research/pdf/Australians%20digital%20livesFinal%20pdf.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Moon JH, Kim KW, Moon NJ. Smartphone use is a risk factor for pediatric dry eye disease according to region and age: a case control study. BMC Ophthalmol 2016; 16: 188–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim DJ, Lim C, Gu N et al. Visual fatigue induced by viewing a tablet computer with a high‐resolution display. Korean J Ophthal 2017; 31: 388–393.
   Google Scholar
• Maducdoc MM, Haider A, Nalbandian A et al. Visual consequences of electronic reader use: a pilot study. Int Ophthalmol 2017; 37: 433–439.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long J, Cheung R, Duong S et al. Viewing distance and eyestrain symptoms with prolonged viewing of smartphones. Clin Exp Optom 2017; 100: 133–137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim J, Hwang Y, Kang S et al. Association between exposure to smartphones and ocular health in adolescents. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2016; 23: 269–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park JS, Choi MJ, Ma JE et al. Influence of cellular phone videos and games on dry eye syndrome in university students. J Korean Acad Nurs 2014; 25: 12–23.
   Google Scholar
• Uchino M, Yokoi N, Uchino Y et al. Prevalence of dry eye disease and its risk factors in visual display terminal users: the Osaka study. Am J Ophthal 2013; 156: 759–766.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Portello JK, Rosenfield M, Bababekova Y et al. Computer‐related visual symptoms in office workers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2012; 32: 375–382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenfield M. Computer vision syndrome: a review of ocular causes and potential treatments. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011; 31: 502–515.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park K, Lee W, Lee N et al. Changes in near lateral phoria and near point of convergence after viewing smartphones. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc 2012; 17: 5.
   Google Scholar
• Park M, Ahn YJ, Kim SJ et al. Changes in accommodative function of young adults in their twenties following smartphone use. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc 2014; 19: 253–260.
   Google Scholar
• Ha N, Kim C, Jung SA et al. Comparison of accommodative system according to the material and font size of near visual media. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc 2014; 19: 217–224.
   Google Scholar
• Kwon K, Kim HJ, Park M et al. The functional change of accommodation and convergence in the mid‐forties by using smartphone. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc 2016; 21: 127–135.
   Google Scholar
• Golebiowski B, Long J, Harrison K et al. Smartphone use and effects on tear film, blinking and binocular vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2018; 59: 913.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hue JE, Rosenfield M, Saá G. Reading from electronic devices versus hardcopy text. Work 2014; 47: 303–307.
   Google Scholar
• Argilés M, Cardona G, Pérez‐cabré E et al. Blink rate and incomplete blinks in six different controlled hard‐copy and electronic Reading conditions. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015; 56: 6679–6685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim J, Um JY, Sung HN et al. Changes in accommodative function after reading with paper book and E‐book on tablet PC. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc 2017; 22: 183–190.
   Google Scholar
• Phamonvaechavan P, Nitiapinyasagul R. A comparison between effect of viewing text on computer screen and iPad® on visual symptoms and functions. Siriraj Med J 2017; 69: 185–189.
   Google Scholar
• Nyman KG, Knave BG, Voss MV. Work with video display terminals among office employees: IV. Refraction, accommodation, convergence and binocular vision. Scand J Work Environ Health 1985; 11: 483–487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gratton I, Piccoli B, Zaniboni A et al. Change in visual function and viewing distance during work with VDTs. Ergonomics 1990; 33: 1433–1441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watten RG, Lie I, Birketvedt O. The influence of long‐term visual near‐work on accommodation and vergence: a field study. J Hum Ergol 1994; 23: 27–39.
   Google Scholar
• Gur S, Ron S, Heicklen‐klein A. Objective evaluation of visual fatigue in VDU workers. Occup Med 1994; 44: 201–204.
   Google Scholar
• Piccoli B, Braga M, Zambelli PL et al. Viewing distance variation and related ophthalmological changes in office activities with and without VDUs. Ergonomics 1996; 39: 719–728.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penisten DK, Goss DA, Philpott G et al. Comparisons of dynamic retinoscopy measurements with a print card, a video display terminal, and a PRIO® System Tester as test targets. Optometry 2004; 75: 231–240.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenfield M, Gurevich R, Wickware E et al. Computer Vision Syndrome: Accommodative & Vergence Facility. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 21: 119–122.
   Google Scholar
• Collier JD, Rosenfield M. Accommodation and convergence during sustained computer work. Optometry 2011; 82: 434–440.
   Google Scholar
• Seo E. Changes in accommodative function after VDT work. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc 2012; 17: 285–291.
   Google Scholar
• Kwon K, Woo JY, Park M et al. The change of accommodative function by the direction of eye movements during computer game. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc 2012; 17: 177–184.
   Google Scholar
• Patel S, Henderson R, Bradley L et al. Effect of visual display unit use on blink rate and tear stability. Optom Vis Sci 1991; 68: 888–892.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acosta MC, Gallar J, Belmonte C. The influence of eye solutions on blinking and ocular comfort at rest and during work at video display terminals. Exp Eye Res 1999; 68: 663–669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freudenthaler N, Neuf H, Kadner G et al. Characteristics of spontaneous eyeblink activity during video display terminal use in healthy volunteers. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2003; 241: 914–920.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlote T, Kadner G, Freudenthaler N. Marked reduction and distinct patterns of eye blinking in patients with moderately dry eyes during video display terminal use. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2004; 242: 306–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenga C, Aragona P, Cacciola A et al. Meibomian gland dysfunction and ocular discomfort in video display terminal workers. Eye 2008; 22: 91–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Himebaugh NL, Begley CG, Bradley A et al. Blinking and tear break‐up during four visual tasks. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: E106–E114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakamura S, Kinoshita S, Yokoi N et al. Lacrimal hypofunction as a new mechanism of dry eye in visual display terminal users. PLoS One 2010; 5: e11119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardona G, García C, Serés C et al. Blink rate, blink amplitude, and tear film integrity during dynamic visual display terminal tasks. Curr Eye Res 2011; 36: 190–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirota M, Uozato H, Kawamorita T et al. Effect of incomplete blinking on tear film stability. Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 650–657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uchino Y, Uchino M, Yokoi N et al. Alteration of tear mucin 5AC in office workers using visual display terminals: The Osaka Study. JAMA Ophthalmol 2014; 132: 985–992.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu CA, Rosenfield M, Portello JK. Blink patterns: reading from a computer screen versus hard copy. Optom Vis Sci 2014; 91: 297–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu H, Wang Y, Dong M et al. Meibomian gland dysfunction determines the severity of the dry eye conditions in visual display terminal workers. PLoS One 2014; 9: e105575.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribelles A, Galbis‐estrada C, Parras MA et al. Ocular surface and tear film changes in older women working with computers. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015: 467039.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yazici A, Sari ES, Sahin G et al. Change in tear film characteristics in visual display terminal users. Eur J Ophthalmol 2015; 25: 85–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schapero M, Cline D, Hofstetter H. Dictionary of Visual Science, 2nd rev ed. Philadelphia: Chilton Book Co., 1968.
   Google Scholar
• Marran LF, De land PN, Nguyen AL. Accommodative insufficiency is the primary source of symptoms in children diagnosed with convergence insufficiency. Optom Vis Sci 2006; 83: 281–289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moulakaki AI, Recchioni A, Águila‐carrasco AJD et al. Assessing the accommodation response after near visual tasks using different handheld electronic devices. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2017; 80: 9–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosha C, Borsting E, Ridder WH 3rd et al. Accommodation response and visual discomfort. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2009; 29: 625–633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wick B, Morse S. Accommodative accuracy to video display monitors: Poster #28. Optom Vis Sci 2002; 79: 218.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenfield M, Logan N. Optometry: Science, Techniques and Clinical Management, 2nd revisted ed. London: Elsevier Health Sciences, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Iribarren R, Fornaciari A, Hung GK. Effect of cumulative nearwork on accommodative facility and asthenopia. Int Ophthalmol 2001; 24: 205–212.
   Google Scholar
• Hennessey D, Iosue RA, Rouse MW. Relation of symptoms to accommodative infacility of school‐aged children. Optom Vis Sci 1984; 61: 177–183.
   Google Scholar
• Davies LN, Wolffsohn JS, Gilmartin B. Cognition, ocular accommodation, and cardiovascular function in emmetropes and late‐onset myopes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46: 1791–1796.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang BC, White JM. Effect of accommodative adaptation on static and dynamic accommodation in emmetropia and late‐onset myopia. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76: 295–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chase C, Tosha C, Borsting E et al. Visual discomfort and objective measures of static accommodation. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: 883–889.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blehm C, Vishnu S, Khattak A et al. Computer vision syndrome: a review. Surv Ophthalmol 2005; 50: 253–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schor CM, Johnson CA, Post RB. Adaptation of tonic accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1984; 4: 133–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamlin PD. Neural mechanisms for the control of vergence eye movements. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2002; 956: 264–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamlin PD, Yoon K. An area for vergence eye movement in primate frontal cortex. Nature 2000; 407: 1003–1007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee H, Park S, Heo H. Acute acquired comitant esotropia related to excessive smartphone use. BMC Ophthalmol 2016; 16: 37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moon JH, Lee MY, Moon NJ. Association between video display terminal use and dry eye disease in school children. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 2014; 51: 87–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belmonte C, Nichols JJ, Cox SM et al. TFOS DEWS II pain and sensation report. Ocul Surf 2017; 15: 404–437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Portello JK, Rosenfield M, Chu C. Blink rate, incomplete blinks and computer vision syndrome. Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 482–487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doughty MJ. Consideration of three types of spontaneous eyeblink activity in normal humans: during reading and video display terminal use, in primary gaze, and while in conversation. Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78: 712–725.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsubota K, Nakamori K. Dry eyes and video display terminals. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 584–584.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benedetto S, Drai‐zerbib V, Pedrotti M et al. E‐readers and visual fatigue. PLoS One 2013; 8: e83676.
   Google Scholar
• Koslowe KC, Waissman H, Biner‐kaplan M. The blink frequency relationship between reading from a computer screen and reading from a printed page. Optom Vis Develop 2011; 42: 168.
   Google Scholar
• Cho P, Sheng C, Chan C et al. Baseline blink rates and the effect of visual task difficulty and position of gaze. Curr Eye Res 2000; 20: 64–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenfield M, Jahan S, Nunez M et al. Cognitive demand, digital screens and blink rate. Comput Human Behav 2015; 51: 403–406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long J, Rosenfield M, Helland M et al. Visual ergonomics standards for contemporary office environments. Ergonomics Australia 2014; 10: 7.
   Google Scholar
• Tsubota K, Nakamori K. Effects of ocular surface area and blink rate on tear dynamics. Arch Ophthalmol 1995; 113: 155–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen PK, Søgaard K, Skotte J et al. Ocular surface area and human eye blink frequency during VDU work: the effect of monitor position and task. Eur J Appl Physiol 2008; 103: 1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köpper M, Mayr S, Buchner A. Reading from computer screen versus reading from paper: does it still make a difference? Ergonomics 2016; 59: 615–632.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller K, Polse KA, Radke CJ. Black‐line formation and the "perched" human tear film. Curr Eye Res 2002; 25: 155–162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shila R. The effect of ocular surface conditions on blink rate and completeness. 2011. Masters Thesis. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Fenga C, Aragona P, Di nola C et al. Comparison of ocular surface disease index and tear osmolarity as markers of ocular surface dysfunction in video terminal display workers. Am J Ophthalmol 2014; 158: 41–48.e2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig JP, Nichols KK, Akpek EK et al. TFOS DEWS II definition and classification report. Ocul Surf 2017; 15: 276–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chidi‐egboka NC, Briggs NE, Jalbert I et al. The ocular surface in children: a review of current knowledge and meta‐analysis of tear film stability and tear secretion in children. Ocul Surf 2018; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2018.09.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar