1. Tinted Lenses for Improving Comfort During Computer Use
James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Tinted Lenses for Improving Comfort During Computer Use
James Kundart OD MEd FAAO, Scott Cooper OD MEd FAAO, John R. Hayes PhD
Pacific University College of Optometry
June 4-5, 2009

2. James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Introduction
Gunnar Optiks makes “digital performance eyewear”. According the company, these eyeglasses are designed to deliver the following to the eyes:
Glare reduction
Higher humidity
Extraneous light diminution
Screen magnification
Convergence relief

3. Gunnar Optiks Lens Features #1
James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Gunnar Optiks Lens Features #1
Antireflective coating
For glare reduction (on the lenses or display?)

4. Gunnar Optiks Lens Features #2
James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Gunnar Optiks Lens Features #2
+8D lens base curve and highly-wrapped frame
Gunnar claims this makes a “microclimate” for dry eyes

5. Gunnar Optiks Lens Features #3
James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Gunnar Optiks Lens Features #3
Yellow tint (and UV protection)
Gunnar calls this “Spectrum Contrast Tuning”

6. Gunnar Optiks Lens Features #4
James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Gunnar Optiks Lens Features #4
+0.50 D lens power
For magnification, not accommodation
Gunnar later changed the power to D

7. Gunnar Optiks Lens Features #5
James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Gunnar Optiks Lens Features #5
Base-in prism
For convergence relief
Very slight (Prentice’s Rule)

8. James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Study #1 Design
A crossover study of 36 subjects was conducted to study the difference between two pairs of spectacles:
+0.50 lenses with a +8D base curve and a yellow tint
Plano (no optical power) specs with the same base curve, but no tint

9. Subjects Participants had the following characteristics:
James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Subjects
Participants had the following characteristics:
Between the ages of 22 and 39
Mean age: 24 years
37 subjects qualified for the study
36 completed it
18 were male
19 were female

10. James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Methods: Study #1
After a week of randomized spectacle wear, the participants were be called in to begin the study
At the first of two visits, the subjects read under of the following conditions for 5 minutes each:
With five 15W compact fluorescent lights, causing 300W equivalent glare
These lights have a color temperature of 6500 K.
With low (about 5%) contrast text
With control text (12-point, full contrast)

11. Glare Lamp Setup

12. James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Symptom Surveys
During reading, participants had their accommodation and pupil size measured with the Grand Seiko open-field autorefractor
After each condition, the Digital Symptom Survey was administered, as well as periodically during the following week

13. Digital Symptom Survey

14. External Symptoms Surveyed
James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
External Symptoms Surveyed
Irritation or burning of the eyes
Tearing, or watery eyes
Dry eyes
Tired eyes
Results: on Chi-square distribution testing, these external symptoms showed significant differences between the two pairs of glasses (Gunnar and placebo, p = 0.001)

15. Corporate Claims Surveyed
James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Corporate Claims Surveyed
Bothered by brightness
Bothered by glare
Computer screen colors are distorted
Computer screen fonts look too small
Computer screen clarity is poor
Results: again, none of these symptoms showed significant differences between the Gunnar and placebo glasses

16. Objective Findings: Accommodation
James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Objective Findings: Accommodation
This analysis was by mixed model analysis of variance with condition and type of glasses
However, there was a significant difference for the accommodative response standard deviation (p=0.01) with both pairs of glasses
This indicates that accommodation was not particularly stable during the testing of either type of spectacles

17. Accommodation Variability is Significant
James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Accommodation Variability is Significant
For both pairs of glasses, at the 95% confidence interval:
Accommodation
(Diopters)
Gunnar Lenses
Placebo Lenses
Mean
1.092
0.675
Standard Error
0.156
0.158
Difference
61.940
63.673
Upper Bound
0.780
0.359
Lower Bound
1.404
0.990

18. Pupil Size is Significantly Different
James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Pupil Size is Significantly Different
For the dependant variable pupil size, there was a significant difference (p < 0.001). For both pairs of glasses at the 95% confidence interval:

19. James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Exit Survey Results
In an exit survey, 59% of the subjects preferred the yellow-tinted magnifying glasses (the Gunnar design)
However, the subjects also admitted to wearing their glasses for less than one hour a day on their computers
This can be most likely explained by the fact that these subjects were recruited from those least likely to wear corrective spectacles

20. James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Compliance Issues
Compliance with either pair of computer spectacles was generally less than one hour a day, even among those who worked on computers at least four hours a day
Compliance could potentially be increased by making prescription computer specs available to regular spectacle wearers, those who are accustomed to eyeglass wear and therefore more likely to use them

21. James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Gunnar Optiks Study #2
The second study will evaluate the following on a single visit, comparing the two specs designs:
Tear evaluation (using the Zone Quick test)
EMG for quantification of squint and blinks
Stress conditions included :
Neutral density (gray) tint compared to yellow tint, with glare
+8 D base curve compared to +4 D (flatter) base curve, with forced air (fan)

22. Zone Quick Dry Eye Test

23. Blink Rate Results (reflex tearing?)

24. External Symptom Results

25. James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Conclusions
When using a computer, these low plus, yellow glasses had a clinically, but not statistically, significant effect on tear film and dry eye symptoms, including:
Irritation or burning of the eyes
Tearing, or watery eyes
Dry eyes, and
Tired eyes

26. Acknowledgement This research was made possible by a grant from
James Kundart OD MEd FAAO June 4-5, 2009
Acknowledgement
This research was made possible
by a grant from
Gunnar Optiks Corporation