 |
 |
7 |
 |
|
988
AM J OPTOM & PHYSIOL OPTICS
Vol. 60. No. 12
suggest transfer of the base-out experimental
training to this task.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated a signif-
icant reduction in asthenopia after fusional ver-
gence training in patients with convergence in-
sufficiency. The automated fusional vergence
training resulted in an increase in fusional con-
vergence ranges during the experimental proce-
dure on vectograms, and on the fixation dispar-
ity curves, although transfer was less than that
found in normals. Traditional orthoptic therapy
resulted in the greatest improvement of fusional
convergence ranges and the greatest reduction
in asthenopia. This further reduction suggests
the need for a multi-method approach to fu-
sional vergence training in order to maximize
transfer to the patient’s normal working envi-
ronment.
APPENDIX A
1.
How long
can
you do “nearwork” (i.e., reading,
writing, sewing, etc.) with no discomfort (e.g., head-
aches, eye ache, burning, stinging, watering, blurri-
ness, double vision; loss of concentration or tired-
ness?
(1)
up to l5min
(2)
up to 30 min
(3)
up to 1 hr
(4)
up to 2 hr
(5)
at least 3 hr
2.
How often do you get headaches when you do
nearwork?
(1)
every time (100% of the time)
(2)
very often (about 75% of the time)
(3)
often (about 50% of the time)
(4)
occasionally (about 25% of the time)
(5)
never (0% of the time)
3.
If you experience headaches during nearwork, how
bothersome are these headaches (i.e., the
degree
to which they interfere with your normal functioning
(1) extremely bothersome
(2)
very bothersome
(3)
moderately bothersome
(4)
mildly bothersome
(5)
minimally bothersome
4.
Do your eyes pull, ache, or water when you do
nearwork?
(1)
every time that I read (100% of the time)
(2)
very often (about 75% of the time)
(3)
often (about 50% of the time)
(4)
occasionally (about 25% of the time)
(5)
never (0% of the time)
5.
Does the reading material ever become blurry, run
together, or jump when you do nearwork?
(1)
every time that I read (about 100% of the time)
(2)
very often (about 75% of the time)
(3)
often (about 50% of the time)
(4)
occasionally (about 25% of the time)
(5)
never (0% of the time)
6.
Does the reading material ever become double when
you do nearwork?
(1)
every time I read (100% of the time)
(2)
very often (about
75%
of the time)
(3)
often (about 50% of the time)
(4)
occasionally (about 25% of the time)
(5)
never (0% of the time)
7.
Do your eyes feel “tired” and/or do you lose your
concentration when you do nearwork?
(1) every time that I read (100% of the time)
(2) very often (about 75% of the time)
(3) often (about 50% of the time)
(4) occasionally (about 25% of the time)
(5) never (0% of the time)
8.
Please briefly describe any other problems you have
when you do nearwork.
REFERENCES
1.
Norn MS. Convergence insufficiency. Incidence in
ophthalmic practice. Results of orthoptic treat-
ment. Acta Ophthalmol (Kbl) 1966;44:132—8.
2.
Duke-Elder S, Wybar K. Ocular motility and stra-
bismus. In: Duke-Elder 5, ed. System of Ophthal-
mology, vol VI, St Louis: CV Mosby, 1973:566—
72.
3.
Kratka Z, Kratka WH. Convergence insufficiency;
its frequency and importance. Am Orthopt J
1956;6:72—3.
4.
Cooper
J, Duckman A, Convergence insufficiency:
incidence, diagnosis, and treatment. J Am Optom
Assoc 1 978;49:473—80.
5.
White JW, Brown HW. Occurrence of vertical an-
omalies associated with convergent and divergent
anomalies. Arch Ophthal 1 939;21 :999—1 009.
6.
Passmore JW, MacLean F. Convergence insuffi-
ciency and its management. An evaluation of 100
patients receiving a course of orthoptics. Am J
Ophthalmol 1 957;43:448—56.
7.
Mayou S. The treatment of convergence defi-
ciency. Br Ophthopt J 1945;3:72—82.
8.
Hirsch MJ. A study of forty-eight cases of conver-
gence insufficiency at the near point. Am J Optom
Arch Am Acad Optom 1 943;20:52—8.
9.
Cooper J, Feldman J. Operant conditioning of fu-
sional convergence ranges using random dot ster-
eograms.
Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1 980;57:205—
13.
10.
Ogle KN, Martens TG, Dyer JA. Oculomotor Im-
balance in Binocular Vision and Fixation Disparity.
Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1967.
11.
Ciuffreda KJ. Near
point
of convergence as a func-
tion of target accommodative demand. Opt J Rev
Optom 1974;1 11:9—10.
12.
Borish IM. Clinical Refraction. 3rd ed. Chicago:
Professional Press, 1970.
13.
Cooper J, Feldman J. Random-dot-stereogram
performance by strabismic, amblyopic, and ocular-
pathology patients in an operant-discrimination
task. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1 978;55:599—609.
14.
Cooper J, Feldman J, Horn D, Dibble C. Reliability
of fixation disparity curves. Am J Optom Physiol
Opt 1981 ;58:960—4.
15.
Alpern M. The after effect of lateral duction testing
on subsequent phoria measurements. Am J Optom
Arch Am Acad Optom 1946;23:442—7.
16.
Liu JS,
Lee
M, Jang J, Ciuffreda KJ, Wong JH,
Grisham D, Stark L. Objective assessment of ac-
commodation orthoptics. I. Dynamic insufficiency.
Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1979; 56:285—94.
17.
Griffin Jr. Binocular Anomalies: Procedures for Vi-
sion Therapy. Chicago: Professional Press, 1976.
18.
Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behav-
ioral Sciences. New York: McGraw Hill, 1956.
19.
Nawratzki L, Avrouskine M. Psychogenic factors
in disturbances of ocular muscle balance. Exo-
|
|
|
7 |
|