Digital Accommodative Asthenopia. Results of the Screening Study of Subjective Manifestations of a Multidimensional Psychometric Scale in On-line Mode. Message 1

Purpose: to investigate the nature, intensity and frequency of the main subjective manifestations of digital accommodative asthenopia online, to determine their relationship with basic ophthalmoergonomic indicators.

Design and research methods. The online screening study was conducted on 1310 students (average age 21.5 ± 0.1 years; 75.3 % of respondents were female, 24.7 % were male). The psychometric scale used contained 25 items from 5 questions reflecting the main symptoms of accommodative asthenopia, as well as ophthalmoergonomic questions.

Results and discussion. The average work experience with mobile screen devices (MSD) was 10.29 ± 0.1 years. At the same time, the average daily duration, as well as the one-time duration of using the digital television, varied widely up to 1 hour and more than 6 hours. The average distance from the eyes to the screen was 36.0 ± 0.5 cm (from 5 to 120 cm). Complaints of varying intensity and nature were expressed by 74.6 % of respondents, with the maximum rating of “constantly” and “very strong” in the percentage of respondents: difficulty focusing at a distance (5.6 % and 5.7 % of respondents, respectively), eye strain when looking at the screen — 2.3 % and 2.7 %, fogginess and blurriness — 1.7 % and 1.2 % of respondents. There were no significant correlation between the length of use of devices and complaints of accommodation problems among the respondents surveyed. A positive weak but significant relationship was found between the indicators “duration of using the digital optics and digital electronic devices per session” and “duration of using the digital optics and digital electronic devices during the day” with complaints of strain when fixing the gaze on the screen, as well as with blurred vision and problems focusing into the distance. The absence of a significant correlation between the length of use of devices and accommodative complaints may indicate the inclusion of some kind of stable, reliable mechanisms of accommodation compensation by the type of long-term adaptation, masking the subjective manifestations of the digital accommodative asthenopia. On the contrary, complaints of accommodative asthenopia associated with the duration of use per session or during the day reflect urgent, “emergency” compensation mechanisms and are manifested more clearly in the form of corresponding complaints of visual discomfort. 

Conclusion. A conclusion is made about the adequacy and effectiveness of the methodological approach using a multidimensional scale in on-line mode for analyzing the subjective manifestations of digital accommodative asthenopia. The data confirm the important role of ophthalmoergonomic factors in the formation of digital accommodative asthenopia in information technology users.

1. Ccami-Bernal F, Soriano-Moreno DR, Romero-Robles MA, Barriga-Chambi F, Tuco KG, Castro-Diaz SD, Nuñez-Lupaca JN, Pacheco-Mendoza J, GalvezOlortegui T, Benites-Zapata VA. Prevalence of computer vision syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Optom. 2024 Jan-Mar;17(1):100482. doi: 10.1016/j.optom.2023.100482.

2. Ovechkin IG, Shavshina DA. Computer vision syndrome from the standpoint of the principles of diagnosis and treatment of accommodative and sensory visual fatigue: a literature review. Russian Medical Journal. 2025;31(1):68–75 (In Russ.). doi: 10.17816/medjrf643341.

3. Ovechkin IG, Gatilov DV, Belikova EI, Ovechkin NI, Kumar V. The relationship between various forms of accommodative asthenopia and the characteristics of professional activity of patients with visually intense work with the phenomena of computer vision syndrome. Ophthalmology. 2023;20(2):308–313 (In Russ.). doi: 10.18008/1816-5095-2023-2-308-313.

4. Trubilin VN, Yudin VE, Ovechkin IG, Trubilina MA, Orlova OM, Kovrigina EI, Budko AA, Matvienko VV. Modern aspects of computer vision syndrome. Clinical practice. 2021;12(3):43–50 (In Russ.). doi: 10.17816/clinpract71366.

5. Proskurina OV, Tarutta EP, Iomdina EN, Strakhov VV, Brzhesky VV. Current classification of asthenopia: clinical forms and stages. Russian Ophthalmological Journal. 2016;9(4):69–73 (In Russ.). doi: 10.21516/2072-0076-2016-9-4-69-7.

6. De-Hita-Cantalejo C, Sánchez-González JM, Silva-Viguera C, Sánchez-González MC. Tweenager Computer Visual Syndrome Due to Tablets and Laptops during the Postlockdown COVID-19 Pandemic and the Influence on the Binocular and Accommodative System. J Clin Med. 2022 Sep 9;11(18):5317. doi: 10.3390/jcm11185317.

7. Kaur K, Gurnani B, Nayak S, Deori N, Kaur S, Jethani J, Singh D, Agarkar S, Hussaindeen JR, Sukhija J, Mishra D. Digital Eye Strain — A Comprehensive Review. Ophthalmol Ther. 2022 Oct;11(5):1655–1680. doi: 10.1007/s40123-022-00540-9.

8. Redondo B, Jiménez R, Vera J, Rosenfield M. The impact of break schedules on digital eye strain symptoms and ocular accommodation during prolonged near work. Exp Eye Res. 2025 Sep;258:110463. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2025.110463.

9. Anastasi A, Urbina S. Psychological testing. St. Petersburg, 2009 (In Russ.).

10. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Computer vision syndrome (digital eye strain). EyeWiki. Available from: https://eyewiki.org/Computer_Vision_Syndrome_(Digital_Eye_Strain). Accessed June 17, 2025.

11. American Optometric Association. Computer vision syndrome. Healthy eyes. Available from: https://www.aoa.org/healthy-eyes/eye-and-vision-conditions/computer-vision-syndrome. Accessed June 09, 2025.

12. Ramteke S, Satgunam P. At what distance should digital devices be viewed? Eye (Lond). 2024;38(4):815–816. doi: 10.1038/s41433-023-02781-9.

13. Jaschinski W, Heuer H, Kylian H. Preferred position of visual displays relative to the eyes: a field study of visual strain and individual differences. Ergonomics. 1998 Jul;41(7):1034–1049. doi: 10.1080/001401398186586.

14. Naipal S, Khumalo N, Rahmtoola M, Chagi S, Didi L, Mthethwa S, Ndhlovu S, Persadh B, Rampersad N. Viewing distance, font size and symptoms of eyestrain in non-presbyopic and presbyopic smartphone users. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2025 Jan;45(1):269–279. doi: 10.1111/opo.13410.

15. Rempel D, Willms K, Anshel J, Jaschinski W, Sheedy J. The effects of visual display distance on eye accommodation, head posture, and vision and neck symptoms. Hum Factors. 2007 Oct;49(5):830–838. doi: 10.1518/001872007X230208.

16. Kim S, Koo S. Effect of duration of smartphone use on muscle fatigue and pain caused by forward head posture in adults. Journal of Physical Therapy Science. 2016;8:1669–1672. doi: 10.1589/jpts.28.1669.

17. Portello JK, Rosenfield M, Bababekova Y, Estrada JM, Leon A. Computer-related visual symptoms in office workers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2012 Sep;32(5):375– 382. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2012.00925.x.

18. Chase C, Tosha C, Borsting E, Ridder WH 3rd. Visual discomfort and objective measures of static accommodation. Optom Vis Sci. 2009 Jul;86(7):883–889. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181ae1b7c.

19. Kim DJ, Lim CY, Gu N, Park CY. Visual Fatigue Induced by Viewing a Tablet Computer with a High-resolution Display. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2017 Oct;31(5):388– 393. doi: 10.3341/kjo.2016.0095.

20. Phamonvaechavan P, Nitiapinyasagul R. A comparison between effect of viewing text on computer screen and iPad® on visual symptoms and functions. Siriraj Med J. 2017;69:185–189. doi: 10.14456/smj.2017.37.