ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Dynamics of Accommodative Behavior Under Prolonged Viewing of Electronic Devices in Young Adults.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of a recess-based ocular muscle regulation training program on visual function in adolescents: a school-based controlled study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Dynamics of Accommodative Behavior Under Prolonged Viewing of Electronic Devices in Young Adults.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the dynamic characteristics of accommodative behavior in non-myopic and myopic young adults under prolonged viewing of electronic devices. Methods: Sixteen subjects aged 18 to 25 were recruited: 8 non-myopes (-0.25 to +2.0 diopters [D]), and 8 myopes (-0.50 to -6.0 D). Refractive state was assessed using an open-field autorefractor in dynamic mode. A comprehensive evaluation of accommodative behavior included (1) pre-task tonic accommodation (TA), computed as the difference in refraction before and after 5 minutes of dark adaptation, (2) refractive state during a 20-minute sustained near task at 25 cm on an iPhone, and (3) post-task adaptation over 3 minutes, under open-loop (open-loop accommodative adaptation [OLAA]) and closed-loop (near work-induced transient myopia [NITM]) conditions. Data were collected in two sessions for OLAA and NITM. Results: Pre-task TA (mean ± SD) did not differ significantly between refractive groups (P = 0.74 and 0.05 for the 2 sessions): non-myopes 0.15 ± 0.33 and 0.16 ± 0.22 D; myopes 0.10 ± 0.12 and -0.03 ± 0.08 D in the OLAA and NITM sessions, respectively. In both groups, refractive state and pupil size remained stable throughout the 20-minute near task, with no significant main effects of time, group, or time × group interaction (linear mixed-effects analysis, P ≥ 0.05). Subjects exhibited a typical accommodative lag of approximately 1.00 D (mean ± SD, non-myopes = 1.02 ± 0.06 and 1.08 ± 0.05 D; myopes = 1.09 ± 0.06 and 1.09 ± 0.08 D, in the OLAA and NITM sessions, respectively). Post task, NITM was more commonly observed than OLAA. Conclusions: Prolonged near tasks did not significantly affect accommodative behavior of participants in either refractive group under open- or closed-loop conditions. Although accommodative adaptation was observed post-task, no systematic relationship was found between its magnitude or decay and refractive status.
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.