屈光不正对微扫视性眼球运动的影响

目的观察屈光不正对人眼微扫视性眼球运动的影响。方法前瞻性病例对照研究。收集2010年10月至2011年3月在天津市眼科医院就诊的屈光不正患者17例和无屈光不正的受试者17例，按照屈光状态与眼别进行分组。屈光不正者未戴镜矫正条件下17只主导眼为ADa组，17只非主导眼为ANa组；屈光不正者戴镜矫正条件下17只主导眼为ADb组，非主导眼为ANb组；正常受试者主导眼为ND组，非主导眼为NN组。采用高速眼球运动记录系统对受试者双眼分别进行注视性眼球运动记录。采用自编的Matlab程序对微扫视性眼球运动成分进行识别、提取和分析。对各组微扫视幅度、峰值速度、发生频率、微扫视间隔时间等量化指标的组间比较采用单因素方差分析（ANOVA），两两比较采用Turkey检验，以P〈0．05为差异有统计学意义。结果6组间平均微扫视幅度的差异无统计学意义，但ADa组（5．42％±0．26％）、ANa组（5．48％±0．25％）较ADb组、ANb组、ND组、NN组幅度变异度大，差异有统计学意义（F=38．67，P〈0．01）；ADa组（55．25±2．40）°／s]、ANa组（54．51±1．77）°／s]微扫视峰值速度较ADb组、ANb组、ND组、NN组小（F=311．84，P〈0．01）；ADa组（1．56±0．03）Hz]、ANa组（1．57±0．05）Hz]微扫视发生频率较ADb组、ANb组、ND组、NN组低（F=155．25，P〈0．01）；ADa组（558±23）ms]、ANa组（555±22）ms]微扫视间隔时间较ADb组、ANb组、ND组、NN组长（聘102．12，P〈0．01）；屈光不正者戴镜或不戴镜及正常受试者主导眼与非主导眼比较，各项指标差异无统计学意义。屈光不正者戴镜条件下与正常受试者比较，各项指标差异也无统计学意义。结论屈光不正可影响人眼微扫视性眼球运动的行为，表现为微扫视幅度变异度增加、峰值速度降低、发生频率降低及微扫视间隔时间延长。戴镜可矫正屈光不正患者微扫视的异常。

Study on the effect of ametropia on microsaccadic eye-movements

Objective To observe the effect of ametropia on the behavioral characteristics of human microsaccadic eye-movements. Methods Prospective case control study. From October 2010 to March 2011, 17 cases of patients with ametropia and 17 subjects without refractive errors were recruited from the outpatient clinic at Tianjin Eye Hospital. The data were grouped according to the refractive state and whether the tested eye was the dominant eye. Seventeen dominant eyes and 17 non-dominant eyes of ametropic subjects without refractive correction were grouped as group ADa and ANa, respectively; 17 dominant eyes and 17 non-dominant eyes of ametropic subjects with refractive correction were grouped as group ADb and ANb, respectively; 17 dominant eyes and 17 non-dominant eyes of normal subjects were grouped as group ND and NN. A high-speed eye-movement recording system was used to monocularly record the fixational eye-movements of subjects' both eyes. A Matlab was used to detect and analyze the microsaccadic components of eye-movement waveforms. The microsaccadic amplitudes, peak velocities, occurrence rates, inter-microsaccadic intervals of all groups were analyzed and compared using Origin 8.0 and Matlab 2008 statistics. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Turkey's post hoc test was used to compare differences between groups. Results There were no significant differences among the mean microsaccadic amplitudes for all groups. However, the variations in mean amplitudes for group ADa (5.42％±0.26％) and ANa (5.48％±0.25％) were larger than those in group ADb, ANb, ND, and NN and the differences were statistically significant (F=38.67, P＜0.01). The mean peak velocities of group ADa (55.25±2.40)°/s]and ANa (54.51±1.77)°/s] were slower than group ADb, ANb, ND, and NN (F=311.84, P＜0.01).The mean occurrence rates of groups ADa (1.56±0.03)Hz] and ANa (1.57±0.05)Hz] were lower than group ADb, ANb, ND, and NN (F=155.25, P＜0.01). The mean inter-microsaccadic intervals of group ADa (557.78±23.12)ms] and ANa (554.87±22.33)ms] were longer than gorup ADb, ANb, ND, and NN (F=102.12, P＜0.01). There were no differences in amplitude variation, peak velocity, occurrence rate or inter-microsaccadic interval between dominant eyes and non-dominant eyes in ametropic subjects with or without refractive correction and normal subjects. There were no differences in amplitude variation, peak velocity, occurrence rate or inter-microsaccadic interval for dominant eyes or non-dominant eyes between ametropic subjects with refractive correction and normal patients.Conclusion Ametropia significantly influenced the human micro-saccadic behaviours characterized by increased amplitude variation, decreased peak velocity, reduced occurrence rate, and prolonged inter-microsaccadic interval. The correction of refractive error can correct microsaccadic abnormality in ametropic patients.