Ocular effects of virtual reality headset wear in young adults

Philip R K Turnbull, John R Phillips, Philip R K Turnbull, John R Phillips

Abstract

Virtual Reality (VR) headsets create immersion by displaying images on screens placed very close to the eyes, which are viewed through high powered lenses. Here we investigate whether this viewing arrangement alters the binocular status of the eyes, and whether it is likely to provide a stimulus for myopia development. We compared binocular status after 40-minute trials in indoor and outdoor environments, in both real and virtual worlds. We also measured the change in thickness of the ocular choroid, to assess the likely presence of signals for ocular growth and myopia development. We found that changes in binocular posture at distance and near, gaze stability, amplitude of accommodation and stereopsis were not different after exposure to each of the 4 environments. Thus, we found no evidence that the VR optical arrangement had an adverse effect on the binocular status of the eyes in the short term. Choroidal thickness did not change after either real world trial, but there was a significant thickening (≈10 microns) after each VR trial (p < 0.001). The choroidal thickening which we observed suggest that a VR headset may not be a myopiagenic stimulus, despite the very close viewing distances involved.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Examples of the four environments and comparison of their features. The outdoor real (RWO) and virtual (VRO) environments were brighter and spacious, while the indoor real (RWI) and virtual (VRI) environments were dimmer and more contained. Both virtual environments had constant accommodative demands, while accommodative demands in the real world varied by fixation distance. All environments except RWO had proximal near cues – in the virtual reality environments proximal cues were also due to the perception of wearing a headset.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Change in binocular status after 40-minute exposure to virtual reality indoor (VRI), virtual reality outdoor (VRO), real world indoor (RWI) and real world outdoor (RWO) environments. There was no significant difference in the effect of environment on any of the four measures of binocular vision (Kruskal Wallis, all p > 0.05). Black crosses indicate group medians.
Figure 3
Figure 3
There was significant increase in the choroidal thickness after 40 minutes in both VR groups at subfoveal (1 mm) and parafoveal (3 mm) regions of the choroid (Kruskal Wallis,

Figure 4

Heart rate was significantly higher…

Figure 4

Heart rate was significantly higher in RWO (left figure, Kruskal Wallis, p

Figure 4
Heart rate was significantly higher in RWO (left figure, Kruskal Wallis, p 
Similar articles
Cited by
References
    1. Vienne C, Sorin L, Blondé L, Huynh-Thu Q, Mamassian P. Effect of the accommodation-vergence conflict on vergence eye movements. Vision Res. 2014;100:124–133. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2014.04.017. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shibata T, Kim J, Hoffman DM, Banks MS. The zone of comfort: Predicting visual discomfort with stereo displays. J. Vis. 2011;11:1–29. doi: 10.1167/11.8.11. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lambooij M, IJsselsteijn W, Fortuin M, Heynderickx I. Visual Discomfort and Visual Fatigue of Stereoscopic Displays: A Review. J. Imaging Sci. Technol. 2009;53:30201. doi: 10.2352/J.ImagingSci.Technol.2009.53.3.030201. - DOI
    1. Howarth PA. Potential hazards of viewing 3-D stereoscopic television, cinema and computer games: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 2011;31:111–122. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00822.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rushton SK, Riddell PM. Developing visual systems and exposure to virtual reality and stereo displays: some concerns and speculations about the demands on accommodation and vergence. Appl. Ergon. 1999;30:69–78. doi: 10.1016/S0003-6870(98)00044-1. - DOI - PubMed
Show all 42 references
MeSH terms
Related information
LinkOut - more resources
[x]
Cite
Copy Download .nbib .nbib
Format: AMA APA MLA NLM
Figure 4
Figure 4
Heart rate was significantly higher in RWO (left figure, Kruskal Wallis, p 

References

    1. Vienne C, Sorin L, Blondé L, Huynh-Thu Q, Mamassian P. Effect of the accommodation-vergence conflict on vergence eye movements. Vision Res. 2014;100:124–133. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2014.04.017.
    1. Shibata T, Kim J, Hoffman DM, Banks MS. The zone of comfort: Predicting visual discomfort with stereo displays. J. Vis. 2011;11:1–29. doi: 10.1167/11.8.11.
    1. Lambooij M, IJsselsteijn W, Fortuin M, Heynderickx I. Visual Discomfort and Visual Fatigue of Stereoscopic Displays: A Review. J. Imaging Sci. Technol. 2009;53:30201. doi: 10.2352/J.ImagingSci.Technol.2009.53.3.030201.
    1. Howarth PA. Potential hazards of viewing 3-D stereoscopic television, cinema and computer games: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 2011;31:111–122. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00822.x.
    1. Rushton SK, Riddell PM. Developing visual systems and exposure to virtual reality and stereo displays: some concerns and speculations about the demands on accommodation and vergence. Appl. Ergon. 1999;30:69–78. doi: 10.1016/S0003-6870(98)00044-1.
    1. Mon-Williams M, Wann JP, Rushton S. Binocular vision in a virtual world: visual deficits following the wearing of a head-mounted display. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 1993;13:387–391. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.1993.tb00496.x.
    1. Wann JP, Rushton S, Mon-Williams M. Natural problems for stereoscopic depth perception in virtual environments. Vision Res. 1995;35:2731–2736. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(95)00018-U.
    1. Mutti DO, Mitchell GL, Moeschberger ML, Jones LA, Zadnik K. Parental myopia, near work, school achievement, and children’s refractive error. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2002;43:3633–3640.
    1. Hepsen IF, Evereklioglu C, Bayramlar H. The effect of reading and near-work on the development of myopia in emmetropic boys: a prospective, controlled, three-year follow-up study. Vision Res. 2001;41:2511–2520. doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00135-3.
    1. McBrien NA, Adams DW. A longitudinal investigation of adult-onset and adult-progression of myopia in an occupational group. Refractive and biometric findings. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1997;38:321–333.
    1. Ting PWK, Lam CSY, Edwards MH, Schmid KL. Prevalence of Myopia in a Group of Hong Kong Microscopists. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2004;81:88–93. doi: 10.1097/00006324-200402000-00006.
    1. Norton TT, Siegwart JT. Light levels, refractive development, and myopia - A speculative review. Exp. Eye Res. 2013;114:48–57. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2013.05.004.
    1. Anderson H, Stuebing KK, Fern KD, Manny RE. Ten-Year Changes in Fusional Vergence, Phoria, and Nearpoint of Convergence in Myopic Children. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2011;88:1060–1065. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31822171c0.
    1. Smith EL. Optical treatment strategies to slow myopia progression: Effects of the visual extent of the optical treatment zone. Exp. Eye Res. 2013;114:77–88. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2012.11.019.
    1. Wildsoet C, Wallman J. Choroidal and scleral mechanisms of compensation for spectacle lenses in chicks. Vision Res. 1995;35:1175–1194. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(94)00233-C.
    1. Wallman J, et al. Moving the retina: Choroidal modulation of refractive state. Vision Res. 1995;35:37–50. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(94)E0049-Q.
    1. Nickla DL, Wallman J. The multifunctional choroid. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. 2010;29:144–168. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2009.12.002.
    1. Wang, D. et al. Optical defocus rapidly changes choroidal thickness in schoolchildren. PLoS One11 (2016).
    1. Chakraborty R, Read SA, Collins MJ. Monocular myopic defocus and daily changes in axial length and choroidal thickness of human eyes. Exp. Eye Res. 2012;103:47–54. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2012.08.002.
    1. Chiang ST-H, Phillips JR, Backhouse S. Effect of retinal image defocus on the thickness of the human choroid. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 2015;35:405–13. doi: 10.1111/opo.12218.
    1. Read SA, Collins MJ, Sander BP. Human optical axial length and defocus. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2010;51:6262–6269. doi: 10.1167/iovs.10-5457.
    1. Read SA, Alonso-Caneiro D, Vincent SJ, Collins MJ. Longitudinal changes in choroidal thickness and eye growth in childhood. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56:3103–3110. doi: 10.1167/iovs.15-16446.
    1. Thaler L, Schütz AC, Goodale MA, Gegenfurtner KR. What is the best fixation target? The effect of target shape on stability of fixational eye movements. Vision Res. 2013;76:31–42. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2012.10.012.
    1. Bellmann C, Feely M, Crossland MD, Kabanarou SA, Rubin GS. Fixation stability using central and pericentral fixation targets in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:2265–2270. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.06.019.
    1. Morales MU, et al. Reference Clinical Database for Fixation Stability Metrics in Normal Subjects Measured with the MAIA Microperimeter. Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 2016;5:6. doi: 10.1167/tvst.5.6.6.
    1. Cebrian JL, et al. Repeatability of the Modified Thorington Card Used to Measure Far Heterophoria. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2014;91:786–792. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000297.
    1. Fitzgerald MEC, Wildsoet CF, Reiner A. Temporal Relationship of Choroidal Blood Flow and Thickness Changes during Recovery from Form Deprivation Myopia in Chicks. Exp. Eye Res. 2002;74:561–570. doi: 10.1006/exer.2002.1142.
    1. Read SA, Collins MJ, Vincent SJ, Alonso-Caneiro D. Choroidal thickness in myopic and nonmyopic children assessed with enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54:7578–86. doi: 10.1167/iovs.13-12772.
    1. MacLachlan C, Howland HC. Normal values and standard deviations for pupil diameter and interpupillary distance in subjects aged 1 month to 19 years. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 2002;22:175–182. doi: 10.1046/j.1475-1313.2002.00023.x.
    1. Woodman EC, Read SA, Collins MJ. Axial length and choroidal thickness changes accompanying prolonged accommodation in myopes and emmetropes. Vision Res. 2012;72:34–41. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2012.09.009.
    1. Phillips JR. Monovision slows juvenile myopia progression unilaterally. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2005;89:1196–1200. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2004.064212.
    1. Charman WN. Near vision, lags of accommodation and myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 1999;19:126–133. doi: 10.1046/j.1475-1313.1999.00414.x.
    1. Gwiazda JE. Progressive-addition lenses versus single-vision lenses for slowing progression of myopia in children with high accommodative lag and near esophoria. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52:2749–2757. doi: 10.1167/iovs.10-6631.
    1. Schor C. The influence of interactions between accommodation and convergence on the lag of accommodation. Opthalmology Physiol. Opt. 1999;19:134–150. doi: 10.1046/j.1475-1313.1999.00409.x.
    1. Buehren T, Collins MJ. Accommodation stimulus-response function and retinal image quality. Vision Res. 2006;46:1633–1645. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2005.06.009.
    1. Kotulak JC, Morse SE, Wiley RW. The effect of knowledge of object distance on accommodation during instrument viewing. Perception. 1994;23:671–679. doi: 10.1068/p230671.
    1. Parver LM. Temperature modulating action of choroidal blood flow. Eye (Lond). 1991;5(Pt 2):181–185. doi: 10.1038/eye.1991.32.
    1. Parver LM, Auker C, Carpenter DO. Choroidal blood flow as a heat dissipating mechanism in the macula. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1980;89:641–6. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(80)90280-9.
    1. Vannetti F, et al. Relationship between ocular surface temperature and peripheral vasoconstriction in healthy subjects: a thermographic study. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H. 2014;228:297–302. doi: 10.1177/0954411914523755.
    1. Abusharha, A. A., Pearce, E. I. & Fagehi, R. Effect of Ambient Temperature on the Human Tear Film. Eye Contact Lens42 (2016).
    1. Ooi EH, Ng EYK. Simulation of aqueous humor hydrodynamics in human eye heat transfer. Comput. Biol. Med. 2008;38:252–262. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2007.10.007.
    1. Gwiazda J, Grice K, Thorn F. Response AC/A ratios are elevated in myopic children. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 1999;19:173–179. doi: 10.1046/j.1475-1313.1999.00437.x.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다