The Effect on Electrophysiology Pattern After Electronic Near Task
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
When performing near tasks, the visual system is actively engaged, requiring varying degrees of effort from the ocular muscles depending on the individual. As the eye focuses on a nearby object, the ciliary muscles contract, causing the crystalline lens to thicken and become more rounded compared to when focusing at a distance. Increased exposure to digital screens places significant visual stress on the eyes, raising the risk of ocular abnormalities such as digital eye strain and myopia progression. This study aimed to compare electrophysiological changes after near work in subjects with different refractive errors, without refractive correction. Four young adults (aged 18–26) from UiTM Puncak Alam, Malaysia, participated. Multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) recordings were taken before and after 10 minutes of electronic near work. Results showed no significant differences in amplitude or implicit time between pre-exposure data (with and without correction) for N1, P1, and N2 waveforms across refractive groups. Similarly, no significant differences were observed between pre- and post-exposure data in implicit time or amplitude for Eyes 3 and 4 when recorded with correction. Additionally, no significant mean differences were found in implicit time across all subjects (Eyes 1–4) for N1, P1, and N2. However, Eye 2 exhibited a significant mean difference in N1 amplitude (p=0.047), and Eye 4 showed a significant difference in N2 amplitude (p=0.033). In conclusion, this study found no significant electrophysiological changes in retinal response before and after digital near task exposure, as measured by mfERG, in both corrected and uncorrected eyes. The few observed amplitude differences suggest individual variability, but overall, near work did not substantially alter retinal electrophysiology in this sample.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
[1] J. Than and A. Barsam, “Lens Anatomy” Training in Ophthalmology, 3rd Edn., Oxford, pp. 121-156, 2022.
[2] J. Liu, Q. Chen and J. Dang, “Understanding Risks of Refractive Error Among Chinese Children Amidst Pandemic Disruptions: Results From A Rapid Survey,” BMC Ophthalmol., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 370, 2021.
[3] F. Salfi, M. Lauriola, A. D’Atri, G. Amicucci, L. Viselli, D. Tempesta and M. Ferrara, “Demographic, Psychological, Chronobiological, and Work-Related Predictors of Sleep Disturbances During the COVID-19 Lockdown in Italy,” Sci. Rep., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 11416, 2021.
[4] U. Usgaonkar, S. R. S. Parkar and A. Shetty, “Impact of the Use of Digital Devices on Eyes During the Lockdown Period of COVID-19 Pandemic,” Indian J. Ophthalmol., vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 1901-1906, 2021.
[5] J. F. Aliancy and N. Mamalis, “Crystalline Lens and Cataract,” Webvision: The Organization of the Retina and Visual System, 2017. [Available Online]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK476171
[6] M. Ptito, M. Bleau and J. Bouskila, "The Retina: A Window Into The Brain," Cells, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 3269, 2021.
[7] M. F. Ansari and A. Ahmad, “Digital Screen Time and Myopia: A Review,” EC Ophthalmol., vol. 14, pp. 01-09, 2023.
[8] A. H. Chen, M. S. M. Rafiuddin and S. Coupland, “Exogenous Factors Affecting Multifocal Electroretinogram: A Mini Review,” Scandinavian J. Optometr. and Vis. Sci., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1-9, 2021.
[9] M. K. Oyamada, P. d. F. Dotto and M. Abdalla, “Technical Factors That Influence Multifocal Electroretinogram (mfERG) Recording,” Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, vol. 70, pp. 713-717, 2007.
[10] B. Young, E. Eggenberger and D. Kaufman, “Current Electrophysiology in Ophthalmology: A Review,” Curr. Opin. in ophthalmol., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 497-505, 2012.
[11] A. Ismaiel, A. Mohsen and A. Anwar, “Comparative Study Between Visual Evoked Potential and Visual Acuity, Field of Vision, and Fundus Examination as Screening Tool for Early Diagnosis of Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine Retinal Toxicity in Rheumatic Patients,” J. Medic.in Sci. Res., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 161-167, 2020.
[12] T. Y. Lai, W. M. Chan, R. Y. Lai, J. W. Ngai, H. Li and D. S. Lam, “The Clinical Applications of Multifocal Electroretinography: A Systematic Review,” Surv. Ophthalmol., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 61-96, 2007.
[13] J. S. Lyons and M. L. Severns, “Using Multifocal ERG Ring Ratios to Detect and Follow Plaquenil Retinal Toxicity: A Review: Review of mfERG Ring Ratios in Plaquenil Toxicity,” Doc. Ophthalmol., vol. 118, pp. 29-36, 2009.
[14] A. Amorim-de-Sousa, R. Macedo-de-Araújo, P. Fernandes, A. Queirós and J. M. González-Méijome, “Multifocal Electroretinogram in Keratoconus Patients Without and With Scleral Lenses,” Curr. Eye Res., vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 1732-1741, 2021.
[15] A. Grzybowski, P. Kanclerz, K. Tsubota, C. Lanca and S.-M. Saw, “A Review on the Epidemiology of Myopia in School Children Worldwide,” BMC Ophthalmol., vol. 20, no.27, pp. 1-11, 2020.
[16] J. C. Chen, B. Brown and K. L. Schmid, “Retinal Adaptation Responses Revealed by Global Flash Multifocal Electroretinogram are Dependent on the Degree of Myopic Refractive Error,” Vis. Res,, vol. 46, no. 20, pp. 3413-3421, 2006.
[17] D. A. Atchison, C. E. Jones, K. L. Schmid, N. Pritchard, J. M. Pope, W. E. Strugnell and R. A. Riley, “Eye Shape in Emmetropia and Myopia,” Investig. Ophthalmol. & Vis. Sci., vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 3380-3386, 2004.
[18] J. C. Chen, B. Brown and K. L. Schmid, “Evaluation of Inner Retinal Function in Myopia using Oscillatory
[19] R. Sachidanandam, P. Ravi and P. Sen, “Effect of Axial Length on Full-Field and Multifocal Electroretinograms,” Clinic. and Exp. Optometr., vol. 100, no. 6, pp. 668-675, 2017.
[20] Potentials of the Multifocal Electroretinogram,” Vis. Res., vol. 46, no. 24, pp. 4096-4103, 2006.
H. Kawabata and E. Adachi-Usami, “Multifocal Electroretinogram in Myopia,” Investig. Ophthalmol. & Vis. Sci., vol. 38, no. 13, pp. 2844-2851, 1997.
[21] M. A. Kader, “Electrophysiological Study of Myopia,” Saudi J. Ophthalmol., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 91-99, 2012.
[22] W. C. Ho, C. S. Kee and H. H. L. Chan, “Myopic Children Have Central Reduction in High Contrast Multifocal ERG Response, While Adults Have Paracentral Reduction in Low Contrast Response,” Investig. Ophthalmol. & Vis. Sci., vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 3695-3702, 2012.
[23] H. H. l. Chan, Y. Ng and P. H. Chu, “Applications of the Multifocal Electroretinogram in the Detection of Glaucoma,” Clinic. and Exp. Optometr., vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 247-258, 2011.
[24] M. F. Marmor, D. C. Hood, D. Keating, M. Kondo, M. W. Seeliger and Y. Miyake, “Guidelines for Basic Multifocal Electroretinography (mfERG),” Doc. Ophthalmol., vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 105-115, 2003.
[25] S. K. Gupta, R. Chakraborty and P. K. Verkicharla, “Electroretinogram Responses in Myopia: A Review,” Doc. Ophthalmol., vol. 145, no. 2, pp. 77-95, 2022.
[26] C. D. Luu, A. M. Lau and S. Y. Lee, “Multifocal Electroretinogram in Adults and Children with Myopia,” Arch. Ophthalmol., vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 328-334, 2006.
[27] E. A. Bristow, P. G. Griffiths, R. M. Andrews, M. A. Johnson and D. M. Turnbull, “The Distribution of Mitochondrial Activity in Relation to Optic Nerve Structure,” Arch. Ophthalmol., vol. 120, no. 6, pp. 791-796, 2002.
[28] P. R. Turnbull, L. K. Goodman and J. R. Phillips, “Global-Flash mfERG Responses to Local Differences in Spherical and Astigmatic Defocus Across the Human Retina,” Ophthal. and Physiol. Opt., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 24-34, 2020.
[29] H. Golemez, N. Yildirim and A. Ozer, “Is Multifocal Electroretinography an Early Predictor of Glaucoma?,” Doc. Ophthalmol., vol. 132, no. 1, pp. 27-37, 2016.
[30] S. Park, S. H. Kim, T. K. Park and Y. H. Ohn, “Evaluation of Structural and Functional Changes in Non-pathologic Myopic Fundus Using Multifocal Electroretinogram and Optical Coherence Tomography,” Doc. Ophthalmol., vol. 126, no. 3, pp. 199-210, 2013.