PURPOSE: To validate a novel ultrasonic sensor for logging reading distances. In addition, this device was used to compare the habitual reading distances between low and high myopes. METHODS: First, the stability and sensitivity of the ultrasonic device were determined by repeated measures using artificial targets. Then, thirty Hong Kong Chinese (20-30 years) were recruited, of whom fifteen were considered to be high myopes (mean ± S.D. = -8.7 ± 0.5 D) and 15 to be low to non-myopes (mean ± S.D. = -2.0 ± 0.2 D). Each subject read a newspaper with their habitual visual aid continuously for 10 min in two sessions at their preferred working distance(s). The reading distances were recorded continuously using a novel nearwork analyzer. The modal working distance was considered as the 'habitual' reading distance. In addition, habitual reading distance was reported orally by each subject. RESULTS: The nearwork analyzer gave accurate and repeatable measurements over a range of distances and angles. Using this instrument, high myopes were found to have a significantly shorter reading distance than low myopes or non-myopes (mean ± S.D. = 35.9 ± 9.8 cm vs 50.9 ± 24.8 cm; two-sample t-test, p = 0.04, df = 18). The reading distances reported orally by the subjects were not correlated with those recorded by the nearwork analyzer. CONCLUSIONS: The nearwork analyzer was found to be an effective tool for measuring nearwork reading distance in a small group of emmetropic and myopic adults over a 10 min interval. Differences between the reading distance between high myopes and low/non-myopes was detected by the device. Further study is needed to determine if a closer working distance is a cause or effect of myopia development.
PURPOSE: To validate a novel ultrasonic sensor for logging reading distances. In addition, this device was used to compare the habitual reading distances between low and high myopes. METHODS: First, the stability and sensitivity of the ultrasonic device were determined by repeated measures using artificial targets. Then, thirty Hong Kong Chinese (20-30 years) were recruited, of whom fifteen were considered to be high myopes (mean ± S.D. = -8.7 ± 0.5 D) and 15 to be low to non-myopes (mean ± S.D. = -2.0 ± 0.2 D). Each subject read a newspaper with their habitual visual aid continuously for 10 min in two sessions at their preferred working distance(s). The reading distances were recorded continuously using a novel nearwork analyzer. The modal working distance was considered as the 'habitual' reading distance. In addition, habitual reading distance was reported orally by each subject. RESULTS: The nearwork analyzer gave accurate and repeatable measurements over a range of distances and angles. Using this instrument, high myopes were found to have a significantly shorter reading distance than low myopes or non-myopes (mean ± S.D. = 35.9 ± 9.8 cm vs 50.9 ± 24.8 cm; two-sample t-test, p = 0.04, df = 18). The reading distances reported orally by the subjects were not correlated with those recorded by the nearwork analyzer. CONCLUSIONS: The nearwork analyzer was found to be an effective tool for measuring nearwork reading distance in a small group of emmetropic and myopic adults over a 10 min interval. Differences between the reading distance between high myopes and low/non-myopes was detected by the device. Further study is needed to determine if a closer working distance is a cause or effect of myopia development.