应用调节检查仪分析观看3D视频诱导的视疲劳

目的 应用调节检查仪AA-1( Accommodation Analyzer-1，AA-1 )分析观看三维（three dimension, 3D）立体视频诱导的人眼视疲劳。设计 实验研究。 研究对象  20~30岁健康受试者48例，屈光状态为正视或轻中度近视（球镜>-5.0 D, 柱镜在-1.0 ~+1.0 D之间），矫正视力均为1.0。方法 每位受试者分别观看两个不同立体显示技术的立体电视40分钟，A屏为硬屏偏振光4K立体电视；B屏为快门眼镜式4K立体电视。在观看前后应用综合验光仪检测调节功能，应用调节分析仪（AA-1）测试受试者的调节反应量及调节微波动高频（microfluctuation high frequency, HFC）值，填写主观问卷（包括眼干、眼痛、视物模糊或头晕头痛等症状，评分为1~10分，分值越高疲劳程度越重）。分析受试者在观看屏幕前后以及比较观看两个屏幕之间主观评分、各项调节指标的差异。主要指标 调节幅度、正负相对调节（PRA、NRA）、调节性辐辏/调节比（AC/A），HFC值以及观看3D视频后的主观评分。结果 受试者在观看B屏前右眼调节幅度为（13.22±3.39） D, 观看后为（13.92±4.13） D（P=0.035）；左眼观看前为（13.93±3.99）D, 观看后为 (15.28±6.13) D（P=0.018）。而观看A屏后，仅左眼调节幅度较观看前变化显著（P=0.010）。观看A屏前后右眼HFC值分别为（60.10±10.96）、（60.26±10.74）（P=0.450），左眼观看前后HFC值分别为（61.22±9.00）D、（61.84±9.67）D（P=0.001）。而观看B屏后，右眼和左眼的HFC值[（58.45±10.63） D和（59.59±13.09）D]均较观看前[（58.93±11.20）D和（60.87±11.31）D]下降（P均=0.000）。主观问卷中，观看A屏和B屏的总评分分别为（3.13+2.35）分和（3.70+2.27）分（P=0.450）。结论 观看立体视频会造成一定程度的视疲劳。通过AA-1仪检测HFC值及调节反应量变化，能够客观反映调节紧张及视疲劳的程度。

Application of Accommodation Analyzer-1 on assessment of visual fatigue induced by watching 3D video

 Objective  To explore the visual fatigue induced by watching three dimensional (3D) video using Accommodation Analyzer-1(AA-1) and accommodative functional examination. Design Experimental study. Participants 48 healthy young subjects with refractive status being emmetropia, mild or moderate myopia (sphere degree>-5.0 D, cylinder degree within +1.0 D)，whose corrected visual acuity were 1.0 or more. Methods Each subject was arranged to watch two kinds of stereo television for 40 minutes in two different morning. Television A is the polarized 4K stereo display, and television B is the shutter-glass 4K stereo display. Before and after watching, accommodative functional examination was undergone by phoropter, accommodative response and microfluctuation high frequency (HFC) values were examined by AA-1. Subjective questionnaire (including eye dry, pain, blur, dizzy and headache. Scores are from 1 to 10, the higher score, the severer fatigue) should be finished after watching. The difference between accommodative measures before and after watching each kind of 3D display, and the difference of accommodative measures after watching between two kinds of 3D displays were analyzed. Main Outcome Measures Amplitude of accommodation, positive relative accommodation (PRA), negative relative accommodation (NRA), ratio of accommodation converge to accommodation (AC/A), HFC values, and subjective questionnaire scores. Results After watching television B, the mean value of amplitude of accommodation (13.92±4.13 D) was larger than that (13.22±3.39 D) before watching in right eye (P=0.035); before watching (13.93±3.99 D) in left eye was larger than that (15.28±6.13 D) after watching (P=0.018). After watching television A, the mean value of amplitude of accommodation only in left eye was larger than before watching (P=0.010). After watching television A, the mean value of HFC in right eyes (60.10±10.96 D) and in left eye (61.22±9.00 D) were larger than before watching (60.26±10.74 D in right eye, 61.84±9.67D in left eye) (P=0.450 for right eye, and P=0.001 for left eye). After watching television B, the mean values of HFC in right and left eye (58.45+10.63 D and 59.59+13.09 D, respectively) were smaller than before watching(58.93+11.20 D and 60.87+11.31 D, respectively)(all P=0.000). The score of subjective questionnaire for television A (3.13+2.35) was better than that for television B (3.70+2.27)(P=0.450). Conclusion Watching 3D video induces visual fatigue. Through examining HFC value and accommodative response using Accommodative Analyzer-1, we may objectively measure the extent of accommodative strain and visual fatigue.