Limits...
Comparison of Objective and Subjective Changes Induced by Multiple-Pinhole Glasses and Single-Pinhole Glasses

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Multiple-pinhole (MPH) glasses are currently sold in many countries with unproven advertisements; however, their objective and subjective effects have not been investigated. Therefore, to investigate the effects of MPH glasses excluding the single-pinhole (SPH) effect, we compared the visual functional changes, reading speed, and ocular discomfort after reading caused by MPH and SPH glasses. Healthy 36 participants with a mean age of 33.1 years underwent examinations of pupil size, visual acuity (VA), depth of focus (DOF), and near point accommodation (NPA); tests for visual field (VF), contrast sensitivity (CS), stereopsis, and reading speed; and a survey of ocular discomfort after reading. Both types of pinhole glasses enlarged pupil diameter and improved VA, DOF, and NPA. However, CS, stereopsis, and VF parameters deteriorated. In comparison with SPH glasses, MPH glasses induced smaller pupil dilation (5.3 and 5.9 mm, P < 0.001) and showed better VF parameters with preserved peripheral VF. However, no significant difference was observed for VA, DOF, NPA, stereopsis, and CS. Reading speed using pinhole glasses was significantly slower than baseline; SPH glasses showed the slowest reading speed. Both types of glasses caused significant ocular discomfort after reading compared with baseline, and symptoms were worst with MPH glasses. In conclusion, both types of pinhole glasses had positive effects due to the pinhole effect; however, they had negative effects on VF, CS, stereopsis, reading speed, and ocular discomfort. In spite of the increased luminance and preserved peripheral VF with MPHs, these glasses caused more severe ocular discomfort than SPH glasses. This clinical trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02572544).

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Effects of SPH and MPH glasses on distance and near VA. (A) Mean DVASP was significantly better than mean UDVA. The difference between DVASP and DVAMP was not significant. (B) Mean NVASP was significantly better than mean UNVA. The difference between NVASP and NVAMP was not significant.SPH = single-pinhole, MPH = multiple-pinhole, VA = visual acuity, UDVA = uncorrected distance visual acuity, DVASP = distance visual acuity with single-pinhole glasses, DVAMP = distance visual acuity with multiple-pinhole glasses, UNVA = uncorrected near visual acuity, NVASP = near visual acuity with single-pinhole glasses, NVAMP = near visual acuity with multiple-pinhole glasses.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5383620&req=5

Figure 2: Effects of SPH and MPH glasses on distance and near VA. (A) Mean DVASP was significantly better than mean UDVA. The difference between DVASP and DVAMP was not significant. (B) Mean NVASP was significantly better than mean UNVA. The difference between NVASP and NVAMP was not significant.SPH = single-pinhole, MPH = multiple-pinhole, VA = visual acuity, UDVA = uncorrected distance visual acuity, DVASP = distance visual acuity with single-pinhole glasses, DVAMP = distance visual acuity with multiple-pinhole glasses, UNVA = uncorrected near visual acuity, NVASP = near visual acuity with single-pinhole glasses, NVAMP = near visual acuity with multiple-pinhole glasses.

Mentions: Both distance VA with MPH glasses (DVAMPH) and distance VA with SPH glasses (DVASPH) improved significantly compared with baseline (P < 0.001 for DVAMPH; P < 0.001 for DVASPH). All participants had the same or better VA when using either type of pinhole glasses than at baseline. No significant difference was observed between DVAMPH and DVASPH (P = 0.110) (Table 1, Fig. 2A).


Comparison of Objective and Subjective Changes Induced by Multiple-Pinhole Glasses and Single-Pinhole Glasses
Effects of SPH and MPH glasses on distance and near VA. (A) Mean DVASP was significantly better than mean UDVA. The difference between DVASP and DVAMP was not significant. (B) Mean NVASP was significantly better than mean UNVA. The difference between NVASP and NVAMP was not significant.SPH = single-pinhole, MPH = multiple-pinhole, VA = visual acuity, UDVA = uncorrected distance visual acuity, DVASP = distance visual acuity with single-pinhole glasses, DVAMP = distance visual acuity with multiple-pinhole glasses, UNVA = uncorrected near visual acuity, NVASP = near visual acuity with single-pinhole glasses, NVAMP = near visual acuity with multiple-pinhole glasses.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5383620&req=5

Figure 2: Effects of SPH and MPH glasses on distance and near VA. (A) Mean DVASP was significantly better than mean UDVA. The difference between DVASP and DVAMP was not significant. (B) Mean NVASP was significantly better than mean UNVA. The difference between NVASP and NVAMP was not significant.SPH = single-pinhole, MPH = multiple-pinhole, VA = visual acuity, UDVA = uncorrected distance visual acuity, DVASP = distance visual acuity with single-pinhole glasses, DVAMP = distance visual acuity with multiple-pinhole glasses, UNVA = uncorrected near visual acuity, NVASP = near visual acuity with single-pinhole glasses, NVAMP = near visual acuity with multiple-pinhole glasses.
Mentions: Both distance VA with MPH glasses (DVAMPH) and distance VA with SPH glasses (DVASPH) improved significantly compared with baseline (P < 0.001 for DVAMPH; P < 0.001 for DVASPH). All participants had the same or better VA when using either type of pinhole glasses than at baseline. No significant difference was observed between DVAMPH and DVASPH (P = 0.110) (Table 1, Fig. 2A).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Multiple-pinhole (MPH) glasses are currently sold in many countries with unproven advertisements; however, their objective and subjective effects have not been investigated. Therefore, to investigate the effects of MPH glasses excluding the single-pinhole (SPH) effect, we compared the visual functional changes, reading speed, and ocular discomfort after reading caused by MPH and SPH glasses. Healthy 36 participants with a mean age of 33.1 years underwent examinations of pupil size, visual acuity (VA), depth of focus (DOF), and near point accommodation (NPA); tests for visual field (VF), contrast sensitivity (CS), stereopsis, and reading speed; and a survey of ocular discomfort after reading. Both types of pinhole glasses enlarged pupil diameter and improved VA, DOF, and NPA. However, CS, stereopsis, and VF parameters deteriorated. In comparison with SPH glasses, MPH glasses induced smaller pupil dilation (5.3 and 5.9 mm, P &lt; 0.001) and showed better VF parameters with preserved peripheral VF. However, no significant difference was observed for VA, DOF, NPA, stereopsis, and CS. Reading speed using pinhole glasses was significantly slower than baseline; SPH glasses showed the slowest reading speed. Both types of glasses caused significant ocular discomfort after reading compared with baseline, and symptoms were worst with MPH glasses. In conclusion, both types of pinhole glasses had positive effects due to the pinhole effect; however, they had negative effects on VF, CS, stereopsis, reading speed, and ocular discomfort. In spite of the increased luminance and preserved peripheral VF with MPHs, these glasses caused more severe ocular discomfort than SPH glasses. This clinical trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02572544).

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus