Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35107178›Full record

ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2022

The effect of image resolution of display types on accommodative microfluctuations.

Niall J Hynes, Matthew P Cufflin, Karen M Hampson, Edward Ah Mallen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Accommodative behaviour and retinal defocus of children during prolonged viewing of electronic devices while wearing dual-focus myopia control soft contact lenses.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. The effect of image resolution of display types on accommodative microfluctuations.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Niall J HynesDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, School of Applied Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0752-6270
Matthew P CufflinSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Karen M HampsonDepartment of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Edward Ah MallenSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6868-8305
University of Bradford · GBUniversity of Huddersfield · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine whether accommodative microfluctuations (AMFs) are affected by the image resolution of the display type being observed. The effect of refractive error is also examined.

methodsTwenty participants, (10 myopes and 10 emmetropes) observed a target on four different displays: paper, smartphone, e-reader and visual display unit screen (VDU), whilst their accommodative responses were measured using a continuous recording infrared autorefractor. The accommodative response and AMF measures comprising low frequency components (LFC), high frequency components (HFC) and the root mean square (RMS) of the AMFs were analysed.

resultsA significant increase in LFC power was observed for the paper stimulus when compared to the VDU and smartphone conditions. Myopes demonstrated a significantly higher LFC and mean accommodative response compared to emmetropes across the four displays. A significant difference in the mean AR between the displays with the lowest and highest resolution was found. A higher mean AR was found with higher resolution of the image. The HFC and RMS accommodation were not affected by display type.

conclusionThe mean accommodative response and the mean LFC power appear to respond differently depending on the type of display in use. Higher resolution devices showed a reduced lag of accommodation to the accommodative demand; however, this may cause a lead of accommodation in myopes for higher resolution display types.

Indexed as

MyopiaOptometryRefractive ErrorsAccommodation, OcularEmmetropiaHumansaccommodative microfluctuationsdigital eye strainelectronic displaysmyopia

Identifiers

PMID35107178
PMCPMC9302673
OpenAlexW4210675014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.