Search

This paper aims to investigate the efficacy of circularly polarized light smartphones in affecting dry eye symptoms and asthenopia through a comparison with linearly polarized smartphones. One hundred twenty participants were randomly divided into four groups. Dry eye and asthenopia symptoms were evaluated using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), Computer Vision Syndrome Scale 17 (CVSS17), Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS), and visual analogue scale (VAS). Objective ocular examinations were assessed by confusion flicker frequency (CFF), tear meniscus height (TMH), noninvasive break‐up time (NIBUT), conjunctiva redness, fluorescein tear break‐up time (FTBUT), corneal fluorescein staining, and the Schirmer I test. Tests were performed before and after a reading task. Subjective evaluations including the OSDI, CVSS17, and CISS were all significantly increased after reading on a linearly polarized smartphone, whereas no change was observed in the circular polarization groups in both light and dark environments. A significantly enlarged VAS was shown in all of the four groups, but a significant increase in ΔVAS only appeared in the linear polarization groups. There were significant decreases in TMH, NIBUT, conjunctiva redness, FTBUT, and CFF after reading on a linearly polarized smartphone but the circularly polarized smartphone had lesser effects on these parameters. Our study indicated that reading on linearly polarized smartphones may cause dry eye disorder, asthenopia, and ocular discomforts, whereas circularly polarized smartphones appears to minimize these adverse effects on eye dryness and visual fatigue in light and dark environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of smartphone reading on the ocular surface and to compare the various effects of different screens and light conditions on the ocular surface. One hundred nineteen volunteers were randomly divided into: light + organic light‐emitting diode (OLED), light + electronic ink (eINK), dark + OLED, and dark + eINK. Ocular surface examinations, including noninvasive break‐up time (NIBUT), noninvasive keratograph tear meniscus height (NIKTMH), ocular redness, fluorescein break‐up time (FBUT), corneal fluorescein staining, meibomian gland assessment, Schirmer I Test, and blinking frequency, were performed before and after a reading task. Symptoms were evaluated using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) and Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire (CVS‐Q). NIBUT and FBUT were decreased statistically significantly after participants read on an OLED screen for 2 hours compared with the baseline in light and dark environments, whereas no statistically significant decrease was observed on an eINK screen. NIKTMH was statistically significantly decreased after reading on an OLED screen in light and dark settings, and the eINK screen had a lesser effect on NIKTMH. An obvious increase in the ocular redness, OSDI and CVS‐Q scores was observed after reading on an OLED screen, whereas the eINK screen had a lesser effect on these indicators. Blink rate increased gradually in OLED subgroups during the reading task, whereas no statistically significant difference was observed in the eINK subgroups. Our research suggested that reading on an OLED screen can cause ocular surface disorder and obvious subjective discomfort, whereas reading on an eINK screen can minimize ocular surface disorder in both dark and light environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]