新手和专家观察者在针对一系列目标时的辐辏和调节反应的差异。
Differences between naïve and expert observers' vergence and accommodative responses to a range of targets.
机构信息
School of Psychology & Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading, UK.
出版信息
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2010 Mar;30(2):152-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2009.00706.x.
PURPOSE
Vergence and accommodation studies often use adult participants with experience of vision science. Reports of infant and clinical responses are generally more variable and of lower gain, with the implication that differences lie in immaturity or sub-optimal clinical characteristics but expert/naïve differences are rarely considered or quantified.
METHODS
Sixteen undergraduates, naïve to vision science, were individually matched by age, visual acuity, refractive error, heterophoria, stereoacuity and near point of accommodation to second- and third-year orthoptics and optometry undergraduates ('experts'). Accommodation and vergence responses were assessed to targets moving between 33 cm, 50 cm, 1 m and 2 m using a haploscopic device incorporating a PlusoptiX SO4 autorefractor. Disparity, blur and looming cues were separately available or minimised in all combinations. Instruction set was minimal.
RESULTS
In all cases, vergence and accommodation response slopes (gain) were steeper and closer to 1.0 in the expert group (p = 0.001), with the largest expert/naïve differences for both vergence and accommodation being for near targets (p = 0.012). For vergence, the differences between expert and naïve response slopes increased with increasingly open-loop targets (linear trend p = 0.025). Although we predicted that proximal cues would drive additional response in the experts, the proximity-only cue was the only condition that showed no statistical effect of experience.
CONCLUSIONS
Expert observers provide more accurate responses to near target demand than closely matched naïve observers. We suggest that attention, practice, voluntary and proprioceptive effects may enhance responses in experienced participants when compared to a more typical general population. Differences between adult reports and the developmental and clinical literature may partially reflect expert/naïve effects, as well as developmental change. If developmental and clinical studies are to be compared to adult normative data, uninstructed naïve adult data should be used.
目的
聚散和调节研究通常使用有视觉科学经验的成年人参与者。婴儿和临床反应的报告通常更具变异性和较低的增益，这意味着差异在于不成熟或次优的临床特征，但专家/新手差异很少被考虑或量化。
方法
16 名本科生，对视觉科学一无所知，按照年龄、视力、屈光不正、隐斜视、立体视锐度和近点调节分别与二年级和三年级视光学和验光本科生（“专家”）匹配。使用结合了 PlusoptiX SO4 自动折射仪的 haploscopic 设备，评估目标在 33cm、50cm、1m 和 2m 之间移动时的调节和聚散反应。在所有组合中，都可以单独或最小化提供视差、模糊和逼近线索。指令集最小。
结果
在所有情况下，专家组的聚散和调节反应斜率（增益）都更陡峭且更接近 1.0（p = 0.001），在近目标时，专家和新手的聚散和调节反应斜率差异最大（p = 0.012）。对于聚散，专家和新手反应斜率之间的差异随着目标逐渐开环而增加（线性趋势 p = 0.025）。尽管我们预测近端线索会在专家中引发额外的反应，但只有在仅存在近端线索的情况下，经验才没有统计学影响。
结论
与匹配的新手观察者相比，专家观察者对近目标需求的反应更准确。我们认为，与更典型的普通人群相比，注意力、练习、自愿和本体感觉效应可能会增强有经验参与者的反应。成人报告与发展和临床文献之间的差异可能部分反映了专家/新手效应以及发育变化。如果要将发展和临床研究与成人参考数据进行比较，则应使用未经指导的新手成人数据。
Zotero 插件