Although the factors associated with CVS have been identified the physiological mechanisms that underlie CVS are not completely understood. Additionally, advances in technology have led to the increased use of hand-held devices, which might impose somewhat different visual challenges compared to desktop displays. Further research is required to better understand the physiological mechanisms underlying CVS and symptoms associated with the use of hand-held and stereoscopic displays.

IMPORTANCE Developmental dyslexia (DD) is a specific learning disability of neurobiological origin whose core cognitive deficit is widely believed to involve language (phonological) processing. Although reading is also a visual task, the potential role of vision in DD has been controversial, and little is known about the integrity of visual function in individuals with DD. OBJECTIVE To assess the frequency of visual deficits (specifically vergence, accommodation, and ocular motor tracking) in children with DD compared with a control group of typically developing readers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A prospective, uncontrolled observational study was conducted from May 28 to October 17, 2016, in an outpatient ophthalmology ambulatory clinic among 29 children with DD and 33 typically developing (TD) children. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcomes were frequencies of deficits in vergence (amplitude, fusional ranges, and facility), accommodation (amplitude, facility, and accuracy), and ocular motor tracking (Developmental Eye Movement test and Visagraph eye tracker). RESULTS Among the children with DD (10 girls and 19 boys; mean [SD] age, 10.3 [1.2] years) and the TD group (21 girls and 12 boys; mean [SD] age, 9.4 [1.4] years), accommodation deficits were more frequent in the DD group than the TD group (16 [55%] vs 3 [9%]; difference = 46%; 95% CI, 25%-67%; P < .001). For ocular motor tracking, 18 children in the DD group (62%) had scores in the impaired range (in the Developmental Eye Movement test, Visagraph, or both) vs 5 children in the TD group (15%) (difference, 47%; 95% CI, 25%-69%; P < .001). Vergence deficits occurred in 10 children in the DD group (34%) and 5 children in the TD group (15%) (difference, 19%; 95% CI,-2.2% to 41%; P = .08). In all, 23 children in the DD group (79%) and 11 children in the TD group (33%) had deficits in 1 or more domain of visual function (difference, 46%; 95% CI, 23%-69%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These findings suggest that deficits in visual function are far more prevalent in school-aged children with DD than in TD readers, but the possible cause and clinical relevance of these deficits are uncertain. Further study is needed to determine the extent to which treating these deficits can improve visual symptoms and/or reading parameters.

An interaction between cognitive and visual demands was observed. Greater cognitive loads accentuate the same differentiated symptoms normally caused by visual stressors.

Refractive error and glare, which reduce image quality and benefit from eyelid squint, caused increased EMG power, eyelid squint response and increased blink rate. Low contrast and small font, which reduce image quality but do not benefit from eyelid squint, resulted in increased EMG power without changes in aperture size and reduced blink rate (for low contrast). Accommodative and convergence stress (in subjects with normal accommodative and vergence abilities) did not cause changes in EMG power, aperture size or blink rate. These results suggest that contraction of the orbicularis oculi is a part of the asthenopia mechanism related to compromised image quality.