聚合近點測量方法的比較

目的：比較在相同的調節視標下，由專業人員經驗判斷(AT)、傳統尺規測量(RAF)、光學感測器測量(ORF)這三種方法所取得實驗數值之差異做調查。方法：本實驗總共招募了34名年齡在20至40歲之間的受試者，平均年齡為27.15歲±4.37歲。分為兩組：第一組由專業驗光人員及視光系學生所組成，第二組為台中市一般受試者。研究的主要目的在比較相同的視標下，三種測量方法所得實驗數值差異做調查，因此雙眼視機能正常與異常的受檢者均可納入此次的實驗對象。受試者所接受的檢查項目都是由有驗光師證照的檢查者所執行，並且全部參加了常規眼科驗光檢查。結果：傳統尺規(RAF)平均值得到了最遠距離的NPC測量值，其次為光學感測器(ORF)，專業人員評估判斷(AT)數值則最短。整個實驗組中，因為RAF只能測量5公分以上數值，因此無法與其他兩種工具相比。而AT與ORF工具之間有顯著差異。NPC 5公分以上數值在三種測量工具之間，AT-RAF與AT-ORF為顯著差異，RAF與ORF之間的關係不顯著。NPC 5公分以上數值在專業人員分組中的數值只有AT-RAF為顯著差異，而非專業人員組別的數值只有RAF-ORF有一致性。結論：RAF尺規的侷限性是無法測量5公分以下的NPC數值，而本實驗中ORF工具與RAF尺規測量有一致性的結果。也許使用ORF替代RAF尺規作為測量NPC數值的工具，是未來可考慮執行的方案。

Purpose: The values obtained by using three methods of professional experiencejudgment (AT), traditional ruler measurement (RAF), and optical sensor measurement(ORF) were compared, and the differences were examined with the same accommodative optotype.Methods: A total of 34 subjects with the ages between 20 to 40 years were recruited in this study (the mean age: 27.15 ± 4.37 years). The participants were divided into two groups: the first group was composed of professional optometrists and optometry students, and the second group consisted of general public of Taichung City. Subjects with normal and abnormal binocular vision were both included in this experiment, and a routine optometric examination was applied to the whole population. Near point of convergence (NPC) was measured by the three different methods. The inspection items received by the subjects were all performed by examiners qualified of optometrist licenses.Results: The NPC values obtained by using traditional ruler (RAF) were the mostdistant, followed by the optical sensor (ORF), and the professional judgment (AT) of the shortest value. There were significant differences between AT and ORF recordings across the experimental groups. Among the three tools, AT-RAF and AT-ORF were significantly different in the value of NPC over 5 cm, but the difference between RAF and ORF was not significant. The values measured by the professional group were significantly different only for the AT-RAF, and the values in the non-professional group were only correlated to the RAF-ORF.Conclusion: The limitation of the RAF ruler is that it cannot measure NPC valuesbelow 5 cm, and there were consistent results between the ORF and RAF ruler. It may be a solution to replace the RAF ruler with the use of ORF as a tool for measuring NPC values.