At office workplaces equipped with visual display units (VDU) that were adjustable to various positions relative to the eyes short and long viewing distances from the eyes to the screen were imposed (mean value of about 63 and 92 cm) at two levels of screen height so that the visual target was either at eye level or 18 cm below, on the average. The change from far to near viewing distance produced a larger increase in eyestrain when the VDUs were at eye level. High screens resulted in greater eyestrain than low screens, as shown by correlations over subjects. When operators were free to adjust the most comfortable screen position, the group of 22 participants preferred viewing distances between 60 and 100 cm and vertical inclination of gaze direction between horizontal and -16 degrees downwards. However, within most subjects the range of preferred screen positions was much smaller. Between 3 days during a 1-month period the test-retest correlations of the preferred screen positions were highly significant, both for viewing distance and vertical gaze inclination. When operators were forced to work at a shorter distance than their preferred viewing distance they reported more visual strain. Thus, operators appear to prefer an individual adjustment of the screen relative to the eyes in order to avoid visual strain and discomfort at VDU work.

Without fixation stimuli--for instance, in darkness--accommodation and convergence of the eyes reach an intermediate state that is relatively stable within a subject but which ranges from about 30 cm to infinity across subjects. This study investigated whether these oculomotor positions in darkness are related to visual strain. During work at a visual display unit (VDU), visual strain at a viewing distance of 50 cm was stronger than at 100 cm (with characters twice as large). The more distant the individual's dark convergence, the greater was the visual strain at the 50-cm viewing distance. When subjects were free to adjust the viewing distance to their comfort level, they chose distances between 51 and 99 cm (mean 74 cm) with characters 5 mm tall.

The location of a computer display should take into account the size of the characters on the screen and the visual acuity of the user.

Eye preference seems to be essentially reflected by eyedness, sighting dominance, and stereoscopic prevalence, but largely unrelated to fixation disparity, accommodation, and visual acuity.

Background: Two types of progressive addition lenses (PALs) were compared in an office field study: 1. General purpose PALs with continuous clear vision between infinity and near reading distances and 2. Computer vision PALs with a wider zone of clear vision at the monitor and in near vision but no clear distance vision. Methods: Twenty-three presbyopic participants wore each type of lens for two weeks in a double-masked four-week quasi-experimental procedure that included an adaptation phase (Weeks 1 and 2) and a test phase (Weeks 3 and 4). Questionnaires on visual and musculoskeletal conditions as well as preferences regarding the type of lenses were administered. After eight more weeks of free use of the spectacles, the preferences were assessed again. The ergonomic conditions were analysed from photographs. Results: Head inclination when looking at the monitor was significantly lower by 2.3 degrees with the computer vision PALs than with the general purpose PALs. Vision at the monitor was judged significantly better with computer PALs, while distance vision was judged better with general purpose PALs; however, the reported advantage of computer vision PALs differed in extent between participants. Accordingly, 61 per cent of the participants preferred the computer vision PALs, when asked without information about lens design. After full information about lens characteristics and additional eight weeks of free spectacle use, 44 per cent preferred the computer vision PALs. Conclusion: On average, computer vision PALs were rated significantly better with respect to vision at the monitor during the experimental part of the study. In the final forced-choice ratings, approximately half of the participants preferred either the computer vision PAL or the general purpose PAL. Individual factors seem to play a role in this preference and in the rated advantage of computer vision PALs.

Thus, this steep proximity-FD curve indicates a weak disparity vergence system that may cause near vision fatigue. This may explain why some young adults prefer longer viewing distances at the computer workstation.

Both the vergence and the accommodative system have individual tonic positions (also referred to as dark vergence and dark focus, respectively) where the static response may be expected to be most accurate. This was confirmed by measuring fixation disparity with nonius lines and accommodation with an autorefractometer for foveal stimuli at viewing distances of 460, 100, 60, 40, and 30 cm. Multiple regression analysis was used at each viewing distance to predict fixation disparity from dark vergence, dark focus, accommodative gain and accommodative convergence: these accommodative measures had little effect on the inter-individual variability of near fixation disparity nor on the linear slope of fixation disparity as a function viewing distance.

Subjective fixation disparity explained only about 25% of the inter-individual variability in objective fixation disparity. The discrepancy between these two measures might be explained by sensory shifts in retinal correspondence, also in the present condition without forced vergence.