PURPOSE: To validate the Clouclip, a continuously measuring objective rangefinder, and examine viewing behaviours during various near tasks in non-myopic and myopic adults. METHODS: In experiment 1, five Clouclip devices were utilised. An infrared camera was used to visualise and measure infrared beam size and angle. Repeatability for distance tracking was assessed from 5 to 120 cm in 5 cm increments. Accuracy of distance tracking was investigated for paper and iPad targets, spatial integration was calculated, effects of target tilt were determined and light measurements were compared to a lux meter. In experiment 2, viewing behaviour was assessed in 41 subjects (21 non-myopic, 20 myopic) during four 15-min near tasks; (1) passive reading of printed material, (2) active writing on printed material, (3) passive viewing on an electronic device and (4) active engagement on an electronic device. Working distance was compared between tasks and refractive error groups. RESULTS: Clouclip distance tracking showed good repeatability, with a mean difference of 0.34 cm and limits of agreement of ±2.0 cm. Clouclip-measured and actual distances were highly correlated for paper and electronic targets from 5 to 120 cm, with mean differences and limits of agreement of 3.96 ± 13.78 cm and 4.48 ± 8.92 cm, respectively; variability increased for distances >100 cm. Tracking ability increased with larger target sizes; tracking was accurate when the target occupied 1.5%-20.3% of tracking beam area, depending on distance and with target tilt up to ±60 degrees. Clouclip- and lux meter-measured ambient illumination were highly correlated for a wide range of intensities (r = 0.96, p < 0.001), but with greater variability for intensities >20 000 lux. The Clouclip infrared beam was measured to have a diameter of 25.6 ± 2.2° and a downward angle of 10.3 ± 0.5°. For subject testing, viewing distance was significantly closer for active and passive printed tasks (29.5 ± 6.7 cm and 33.2 ± 8.8 cm, respectively) than for active and passive electronic tasks (35.4 ± 8.0 cm and 40.8 ± 10.4 cm, respectively), with no differences between refractive error groups (p = 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: The Clouclip performed well in measuring near and intermediate distances and could distinguish between indoor (<1000 lux) and outdoor (>1000 lux) illumination. A closer working distance was observed for printed tasks compared to those on an iPad, with no difference in viewing distance between non-myopic and myopic adults.
PURPOSE: To validate the Clouclip, a continuously measuring objective rangefinder, and examine viewing behaviours during various near tasks in non-myopic and myopic adults. METHODS: In experiment 1, five Clouclip devices were utilised. An infrared camera was used to visualise and measure infrared beam size and angle. Repeatability for distance tracking was assessed from 5 to 120 cm in 5 cm increments. Accuracy of distance tracking was investigated for paper and iPad targets, spatial integration was calculated, effects of target tilt were determined and light measurements were compared to a lux meter. In experiment 2, viewing behaviour was assessed in 41 subjects (21 non-myopic, 20 myopic) during four 15-min near tasks; (1) passive reading of printed material, (2) active writing on printed material, (3) passive viewing on an electronic device and (4) active engagement on an electronic device. Working distance was compared between tasks and refractive error groups. RESULTS: Clouclip distance tracking showed good repeatability, with a mean difference of 0.34 cm and limits of agreement of ±2.0 cm. Clouclip-measured and actual distances were highly correlated for paper and electronic targets from 5 to 120 cm, with mean differences and limits of agreement of 3.96 ± 13.78 cm and 4.48 ± 8.92 cm, respectively; variability increased for distances >100 cm. Tracking ability increased with larger target sizes; tracking was accurate when the target occupied 1.5%-20.3% of tracking beam area, depending on distance and with target tilt up to ±60 degrees. Clouclip- and lux meter-measured ambient illumination were highly correlated for a wide range of intensities (r = 0.96, p < 0.001), but with greater variability for intensities >20 000 lux. The Clouclip infrared beam was measured to have a diameter of 25.6 ± 2.2° and a downward angle of 10.3 ± 0.5°. For subject testing, viewing distance was significantly closer for active and passive printed tasks (29.5 ± 6.7 cm and 33.2 ± 8.8 cm, respectively) than for active and passive electronic tasks (35.4 ± 8.0 cm and 40.8 ± 10.4 cm, respectively), with no differences between refractive error groups (p = 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: The Clouclip performed well in measuring near and intermediate distances and could distinguish between indoor (<1000 lux) and outdoor (>1000 lux) illumination. A closer working distance was observed for printed tasks compared to those on an iPad, with no difference in viewing distance between non-myopic and myopic adults.
Authors: J M Najman; G M Williams; J Nikles; S Spence; W Bor; M O'Callaghan; R Le Brocque; M J Andersen; G J Shuttlewood Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Donald O Mutti; G Lynn Mitchell; Melvin L Moeschberger; Lisa A Jones; Karla Zadnik Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Lisa O'Donoghue; Venediktos V Kapetanankis; Julie F McClelland; Nicola S Logan; Christopher G Owen; Kathryn J Saunders; Alicja R Rudnicka Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-02-05 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Zhong Lin; Tie Ying Gao; Balamurali Vasudevan; Kenneth J Ciuffreda; Yuan Bo Liang; Vishal Jhanji; Su Jie Fan; Wei Han; Ning Li Wang Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2017-11-17 Impact factor: 2.209