Purpose: To determine whether accommodative microfluctuations (AMFs) are affected by the image resolution of the display type being observed. The effect of refractive error is also examined.
Methods: Twenty participants, (10 myopes and 10 emmetropes) observed a target on four different displays: paper, smartphone, e-reader and visual display unit screen (VDU), whilst their accommodative responses were measured using a continuous recording infrared autorefractor. The accommodative response and AMF measures comprising low frequency components (LFC), high frequency components (HFC) and the root mean square (RMS) of the AMFs were analysed.
Results: A significant increase in LFC power was observed for the paper stimulus when compared to the VDU and smartphone conditions. Myopes demonstrated a significantly higher LFC and mean accommodative response compared to emmetropes across the four displays. A significant difference in the mean AR between the displays with the lowest and highest resolution was found. A higher mean AR was found with higher resolution of the image. The HFC and RMS accommodation were not affected by display type.
Conclusion: The mean accommodative response and the mean LFC power appear to respond differently depending on the type of display in use. Higher resolution devices showed a reduced lag of accommodation to the accommodative demand; however, this may cause a lead of accommodation in myopes for higher resolution display types.
Keywords: accommodative microfluctuations; digital eye strain; electronic displays; myopia.
© 2022 The Authors. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of College of Optometrists.