ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Adaptive Responses of Accommodation and Vergence Following Exposure to Augmented Reality in a Head-Mounted Display.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adaptive Responses of Accommodation and Vergence Following Exposure to Augmented Reality in a Head-Mounted Display.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The vergence-accommodation conflict in augmented reality head-mounted displays (AR-HMDs) can alter the oculomotor system, leading to visual discomfort and fatigue. The purpose of this work was to evaluate changes of accommodation and vergence and their interaction after completing a visually and cognitively demanding 3D task using an AR-HMD. Methods: Oculomotor parameters, including tonic accommodation (TA), CA/C ratio, tonic vergence (TV), and AC/A ratio were assessed with a photorefractor in 16 participants (10 females; mean age, 23.0 ± 2.6 years). Measurements were taken before and after performing physical and AR versions of an executive function 3D task (Tower of London). Participants moved spheres between pegs at 0.4 m to match the configuration presented on a 2D monitor at 4 m, creating vergence and accommodation demands of 2.5 and 0.25 MA/D. Accommodation demand of virtual content in the AR-HMD, however, remained fixed at 0.5 D. Results: Oculomotor parameters differed across tasks for TA, F(2, 81) = 9.640, P < 0.001, and CA/C ratio, F(2, 84) = 9.720, P < 0.001, but not for TV, F(1, 81) = 0.485, P = 0.488, and AC/A ratio, F(2, 90) = 0.001, P = 0.99. TA and CA/C ratio reduced significantly post-AR task (P < 0.01) but not post-physical task (P > 0.05). Conclusions: The AR task induced changes in the CA/C ratio and TA, but no such changes were observed after the physical task, suggesting that exposure to visually and cognitively demanding 3D tasks in an AR-HMD can, at least temporarily, alter the oculomotor system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.