PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of visual display terminal antireflection (AR) films on blink rate and subjective symptoms of asthenopia. METHODS: This was a nonrandomized, prospective clinical trial in which 7 healthy volunteers underwent blink rate measurements with a blink rate recording system while viewing a DVD on a computer display for 10 minutes. The measurements were carried out without an AR film on terminal displays initially. The same tasks were performed on the next day with an AR film on the displays. The subjects were also required to score their symptoms of asthenopia on a visual analog scale before and just after DVD viewing. The changes in blink rate and asthenopia scores with AR film use were assessed by the Student t test. RESULTS: The mean baseline blink rate was 15.7 +/- 5.9 blinks /min, which decreased significantly to 9.6 +/- 4.3 blinks/min after DVD viewing without an AR film (P < 0.05). The mean baseline and final blink rates for DVD viewing with an AR film were 14.6 +/- 9.2 and 14.3 +/- 9.2 blinks/min, respectively. There were no significant differences between baseline and final blink rates after DVD viewing with an AR film (P > 0.05). The mean cumulative visual analog asthenopic symptom score after DVD viewing without an AR film was 72 +/- 18% compared with the mean cumulative symptom score of 52 +/- 11% after DVD viewing with an AR film. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Visual display terminal work appears to be associated with asthenopic symptoms and decreased blink rates. The use of AR films on computer displays may prevent both reflections of light from screen surfaces and reduction in blink rates resulting in fewer asthenopic symptoms.
PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of visual display terminal antireflection (AR) films on blink rate and subjective symptoms of asthenopia. METHODS: This was a nonrandomized, prospective clinical trial in which 7 healthy volunteers underwent blink rate measurements with a blink rate recording system while viewing a DVD on a computer display for 10 minutes. The measurements were carried out without an AR film on terminal displays initially. The same tasks were performed on the next day with an AR film on the displays. The subjects were also required to score their symptoms of asthenopia on a visual analog scale before and just after DVD viewing. The changes in blink rate and asthenopia scores with AR film use were assessed by the Student t test. RESULTS: The mean baseline blink rate was 15.7 +/- 5.9 blinks /min, which decreased significantly to 9.6 +/- 4.3 blinks/min after DVD viewing without an AR film (P < 0.05). The mean baseline and final blink rates for DVD viewing with an AR film were 14.6 +/- 9.2 and 14.3 +/- 9.2 blinks/min, respectively. There were no significant differences between baseline and final blink rates after DVD viewing with an AR film (P > 0.05). The mean cumulative visual analog asthenopic symptom score after DVD viewing without an AR film was 72 +/- 18% compared with the mean cumulative symptom score of 52 +/- 11% after DVD viewing with an AR film. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Visual display terminal work appears to be associated with asthenopic symptoms and decreased blink rates. The use of AR films on computer displays may prevent both reflections of light from screen surfaces and reduction in blink rates resulting in fewer asthenopic symptoms.