Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tear film change and ocular symptoms after reading printed book and electronic book: a crossover study

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate and compare tear film changes and ocular symptoms after reading an electronic book (e-book) and a printed book.

Study design

Clinical and experimental.

Methods

Crossover study was conducted in 30 healthy volunteers, some of whom read an e-book and others a printed book for 20 minutes and then switched the following week. Tear meniscus height (TMH), non-invasive break-up time (NIBUT), fluorescein break up time (FBUT), corneal and conjunctival staining score, and questionnaires about seven ocular symptoms were evaluated before and after reading by both reading methods.

Results

After reading an e-book, FBUT and NIBUT were significantly decreased (p<0.001for both). Similar to printed book readers (p=0.006, p=0.04, respectively). TMH and corneal and conjunctival staining score showed no significant differences in either group. Comparing the two groups, the e-book group showed more decrease in TMH, FBUT, and NIBUT (p>0.05). Ocular symptoms were significantly increased in both groups. The e-book group showed more increase in all symptoms, but only tearing (p=0.03) and burning sensation (p=0.02) were significantly different.

Conclusions

Reading an e-book affected tear film instability and significantly increased burning sensation and tearing to a larger extend than reading a printed book.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Electronic Transactions Development Agency, Ministry of Information and Communication Technology: Thailand Internet User Profile 2015. https://www.etda.or.th/publishing-detail/thailand-internet-user-profile-2015.html. 2016. Accessed 6 Aug 2017.

  2. Hayes JR, Sheedy JE, Stelmack JA, Heaney CA. Computer use, symptoms, and quality of life. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84:738–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Blehm C, Vishnu S, Khattak A, Mitra S, Yee RW. Computer vision syndrome: a review. Surv Ophthalmol. 2005;50:253–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Randolph SA. Computer vision syndrome. Workplace Health Saf. 2017;65:328.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rosenfield M. Computer vision syndrome: a review of ocular causes and potential treatments. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011;31:502–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lie I, Watten RG. VDT work, oculomotor strain, and subjective complaints: an experimental and clinical study. Ergonomics. 1994;37:1419–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Portello JK, Rosenfield M, Bababekova Y, Estrada JM, Leon A. Computer-related visual symptoms in office workers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2012;32:375–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Scheiman M. Accommodative and binocular vision disorders associated with video display terminals: diagnosis and management issues. J Am Optom Assoc. 1996;67:531–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Agarwal S, Goel D, Sharma A. Evaluation of the factors which contribute to the ocular complaints in computer users. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7:331–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chu C, Rosenfield M, Portello JK, Benzoni JA, Collier JD. A comparison of symptoms after viewing text on a computer screen and hardcopy. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011;31:29–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nakaishi H, Yamada Y. Abnormal tear dynamics and symptoms of eyestrain in operators of visual display terminals. Occup Environ Med. 1999;56:6–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Porcar E, Pons AM, Lorente A. Visual and ocular effects from the use of flat-panel displays. Int J Ophthalmol. 2016;9:881–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ranasinghe P, Wathurapatha WS, Perera YS, Lamabadusuriya DA, Kulatunga S, Jayawardana N, et al. Computer vision syndrome among computer office workers in a developing country: an evaluation of prevalence and risk factors. BMC Res Notes. 2016;9:150.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Thorud HM, Helland M, Aaras A, Kvikstad TM, Lindberg LG, Horgen G. Eye-related pain induced by visually demanding computer work. Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89:E452–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chu CA, Rosenfield M, Portello JK. Blink patterns: reading from a computer screen versus hard copy. Optom Vis Sci. 2014;91:297–302.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chang PC, Chou SY, Shieh KK. Reading performance and visual fatigue when using electronic paper displays in long-duration reading tasks under various lighting conditions. Displays. 2013;34:208–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Argiles M, Cardona G, Perez-Cabre E, Rodriguez M. Blink rate and incomplete blinks in six different controlled hard-copy and electronic reading conditions. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56:6679–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Benedetto S, Drai-Zerbib V, Pedrotti M, Tissier G, Baccino T. E-readers and visual fatigue. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e83676.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hue JE, Rosenfield M, Saa G. Reading from electronic devices versus hardcopy text. Work. 2014;47:303–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Maducdoc MM, Haider A, Nalbandian A, Youm JH, Morgan PV, Crow RW. Visual consequences of electronic reader use: a pilot study. Int Ophthalmol. 2017;37:433–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kang YY, Wang MJJ, Lin R. Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays. 2009;30:49–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Craig JP, Nichols KK, Akpek EK, Caffery B, Dua HS, Joo CK, et al. TFOS DEWS II diagnostic methodology report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15:539–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pult H, Nichols JJ. A review of meibography. Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89:E760–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Thomson WD. Eye problems and visual display terminals—the facts and the fallacies. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1998;18:111–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Travers PH, Stanton BA. Office workers and video display terminals: physical, psychological and ergonomic factors. AAOHN J. 2002;50:489–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rossignol AM, Morse EP, Summers VM, Pagnotto LD. Video display terminal use and reported health symptoms among Massachusetts clerical workers. J Occup Med. 1987;29:112–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cardona G, Garcia C, Seres C, Vilaseca M, Gispets J. Blink rate, blink amplitude, and tear film integrity during dynamic visual display terminal tasks. Curr Eye Res. 2011;36:190–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Himebaugh NL, Begley CG, Bradley A, Wilkinson JA. Blinking and tear break-up during four visual tasks. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86:E106–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schlote T, Kadner G, Freudenthaler N. Marked reduction and distinct patterns of eye blinking in patients with moderately dry eyes during video display terminal use. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004;242:306–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Uchino M, Yokoi N, Uchino Y, Dogru M, Kawashima M, Komuro A, et al. Prevalence of dry eye disease and its risk factors in visual display terminal users: the Osaka study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156:759–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kojima T, Ibrahim OM, Wakamatsu T, Tsuyama A, Ogawa J, Matsumoto Y, et al. The impact of contact lens wear and visual display terminal work on ocular surface and tear functions in office workers. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;152:933–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Doughty MJ. Consideration of three types of spontaneous eyeblink activity in normal humans: during reading and video display terminal use, in primary gaze, and while in conversation. Optom Vis Sci. 2001;78:712–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Munshi S, Varghese A, Dhar-Munshi S. Computer vision syndrome—a common cause of unexplained visual symptoms in the modern era. Int J Clin Pract. 2017;71:e12962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wolkoff P, Nojgaard JK, Troiano P, Piccoli B. Eye complaints in the office environment: precorneal tear film integrity influenced by eye blinking efficiency. Occup Environ Med. 2005;62:4–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Freudenthaler N, Neuf H, Kadner G, Schlote T. Characteristics of spontaneous eyeblink activity during video display terminal use in healthy volunteers. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2003;241:914–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Orchard LN, Stern JA. Blinks as an index of cognitive activity during reading. Integr Physiol Behav Sci. 1991;26:108–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Tsubota K, Nakamori K. Dry eyes and video display terminals. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:584.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Ashish M. Difference between LED, LCD, plasma TVs and which one to buy. Guiding Media Pvt Ltd. 2017. https://www.guidingtech.com/26940/led-lcd-plasma-difference. Accessed 6 Aug 2017.

  39. Raasch TW, Bailey IL, Howarth PA, Greenhouse DS, Berman S. Visual performance at video display terminals–effects of screen color and illuminant type. Optom Vis Sci. 1991;68:924–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Tsubota K, Nakamori K. Effects of ocular surface area and blink rate on tear dynamics. Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113:155–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Bababekova Y, Rosenfield M, Hue JE, Huang RR. Font size and viewing distance of handheld smart phones. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88:795–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Fenety A, Walker JM. Short-term effects of workstation exercises on musculoskeletal discomfort and postural changes in seated video display unit workers. Phys Ther. 2002;82:578–89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Segui Mdel M, Cabrero-Garcia J, Crespo A, Verdu J, Ronda E. A reliable and valid questionnaire was developed to measure computer vision syndrome at the workplace. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:662–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pflugfelder SC, Gumus K, Feuerman J, Alex A. Tear volume-based diagnostic classification for tear dysfunction. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2017;57:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Alex A, Edwards A, Hays JD, Kerkstra M, Shih A, de Paiva CS, et al. Factors predicting the ocular surface response to desiccating environmental stress. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:3325–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Tung CI, Perin AF, Gumus K, Pflugfelder SC. Tear meniscus dimensions in tear dysfunction and their correlation with clinical parameters. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157(301–10):e1.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge Ms.Julaporn Pooliam from the Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Health Research and Development, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital for assistance with statistical analysis, Mr.Dhanach Dhirachaikulpanich from Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital and Mr.Anupong Veeraburinon from the Research Division for preparing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Wanglang Road, Bangkoknoi, Bangkok, 10700, Thailand

    Pinnita Prabhasawat, Warinyupa Pinitpuwadol, Dawisa Angsriprasert, Pratuangsri Chonpimai & Manutsawin Saiman

Authors
  1. Pinnita Prabhasawat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Warinyupa Pinitpuwadol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dawisa Angsriprasert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pratuangsri Chonpimai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Manutsawin Saiman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pinnita Prabhasawat.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

P Prabhasawat, None; W. Pinitpuwadol, None; D. Angsriprasert, None; P. Chonpimai, None; M. Saiman, None.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Corresponding author: Pinnita Prabhasawat

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prabhasawat, P., Pinitpuwadol, W., Angsriprasert, D. et al. Tear film change and ocular symptoms after reading printed book and electronic book: a crossover study. Jpn J Ophthalmol 63, 137–144 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-018-00648-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-018-00648-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation