• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.217-224
• /
• 2014

Purpose: This study was conducted to compare and analyze the accommodative system (accommodative response and accommodative lag) according to the material and font size of near visual media that we often encounter in daily life. Methods: Forty adult men and women aged 20 to 30 who not had specific ocular diseases and refractive surgery experience were examined to measure and compare the accommodative response according to the material of near visual media (print paper, newspaper, magazine, the I-Phone, LCD monitor) and font size (6, 8, 10, 12) by using both eyes open-view auto-refractometer. Results: The accommodative stimulus was $2.28{\pm}0.11D$ and the accommodative response was $1.66{\pm}0.30D$. The accommodative lag namely the difference between accommodative stimulus and accommodative response was $0.62{\pm}0.28D$. The accommodative response according to material of visual media using LCD monitor was $1.35{\pm}0.26D$ (p=0.00) and using the I-Phone was $1.55{\pm}0.25D$ (p=0.04). Both of them were statistically significant lower. The accommodative lag using LCD monitor was $0.93{\pm}0.24D$ (p=0.00) and using the I-Phone was $0.73{\pm}0.25D$ (p=0.04) and they were statistically significant higher. The accommodative response and accommodative lag according to font size were not statistically significant (p>0.05). Conclusions: During near working, the accommodative system was more affected by material than font size of visual media. Especially, visual media of non-luminous material (print paper, newspaper, magazine) are considered fewer burdens on eyes than luminous material (I-Phone, LCD monitor) in terms of accommodative system.