Gunta Krumina

Prof. Gunta Krumina

The Head of the Department of Optometry and Vision Science
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

22Years (2005-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
17 October 2021 in Applied Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Qasim AliQasim Ali
Qasim Ali
IHIlona Heldal
Ilona Heldal
CHCarsten Helgesen
Carsten Helgesen
GKGunta Krumina
Gunta Krumina
Cristina CostescuCristina Costescu
Cristina Costescu
STSerge Thill
Serge Thill
Many children have undetected vision problems or insufficient visual information processing that may be a factor in lower academic outcomes. The aim of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of the importance of vision screening for school-aged children, and to investigate the possibilities of how eye-tracking (ET) technologies can support this. While there are indications that these technologies can support vision screening, a broad understanding of how to apply them and by whom, and if it is possible to utilize them at schools, is lacking. We review interdisciplinary research on performing vision investigations, and discuss current challenges for technology support. The focus is on exploring the possibilities of ET technologies to better support screening and handling of vision disorders, especially by non-vision experts. The data orginate from a literature survey of peer-reviewed journals and conference articles complemented by secondary sources, following a rapid review methodology. We highlight current trends in supportive technologies for vision screening, and identify the involved stakeholders and the research studies that discuss how to develop more supportive ET technologies for vision screening and training by non-experts.

24 August 2015 in Perception
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Aiga SvedeAiga Svede
Aiga Svede
ETElīna Treija
Elīna Treija
WJWolfgang Jaschinski
Wolfgang Jaschinski
GKGunta Krumina
Gunta Krumina
When measuring fixation disparity (an oculomotor vergence error), the question arises as to whether a monocular or binocular calibration is more precise and physiologically more appropriate. In monocular calibrations, a single eye fixates on a calibration target that is taken as having been projected onto the center of the fovea; the corresponding vergence state represents the heterophoria (the resting vergence position), which has no effect on the calibration procedure. In binocular calibrations, a vergence error may be present and may affect the subsequent measurement of the fixation disparity during binocular recordings. This study includes a test of the precision of both monocular and binocular calibrations and an evaluation of the impact of the calibration procedure on the measurement of fixation disparity during a dot scanning task. Our results show that 11 participants (out of 19) each exhibited a significant difference in fixation disparity with the two types of calibration procedures. In addition, the fixation disparity was more strongly affected by heterophoria undergoing monocular calibration, as opposed to binocular calibration. This serves as additional evidence showing that the monocular calibration produces a physiologically more plausible fixation disparity and seems to be more appropriate for studying the full extent of fixation disparity.

6 July 2016 in Reading and Writing
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JSJelena Serdjukova
Jelena Serdjukova
LELasma Ekimane
Lasma Ekimane
JVJanis Valeinis
Janis Valeinis
JSJurgis Skilters
Jurgis Skilters
GKGunta Krumina
Gunta Krumina

2 August 2021 in Journal of Vision
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Tatjana PladereTatjana Pladere
Tatjana Pladere
ALArtis Luguzis
Artis Luguzis
RZRoberts Zabels
Roberts Zabels
RSRendijs Smukulis
Rendijs Smukulis
VBViktorija Barkovska
Viktorija Barkovska
GKGunta Krumina
Gunta Krumina
New visualization approaches are being actively developed aiming to mitigate the effect of vergence-accommodation conflict in stereoscopic augmented reality; however, high interindividual variability in spatial performance makes it difficult to predict user gain. To address this issue, we investigated the effects of consistent and inconsistent binocular and focus cues on perceptual matching in the stereoscopic environment of augmented reality using a head-mounted display that was driven in multifocal and single focal plane modes. Participants matched the distance of a real object with images projected at three viewing distances, concordant with the display focal planes when driven in the multifocal mode. As a result, consistency of depth cues facilitated faster perceptual judgments on spatial relations. Moreover, the individuals with mild binocular and accommodative disorders benefited from the visualization of information on the focal planes corresponding to image planes more than individuals with normal vision, which was reflected in performance accuracy. Because symptoms and complaints may be absent when the functionality of the sensorimotor system is reduced, the results indicate the need for a detailed assessment of visual functions in research on spatial performance. This study highlights that the development of a visualization system that reduces visual stress and improves user performance should be a priority for the successful implementation of augmented reality displays.

25 April 2015 in Annals of Dyslexia
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
EKEvita Kassaliete
Evita Kassaliete
ILIvars Lacis
Ivars Lacis
SFSergejs Fomins
Sergejs Fomins
GKGunta Krumina
Gunta Krumina

25 December 2024 in Life
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ICIlze Ceple
Ilze Ceple
Aiga SvedeAiga Svede
Aiga Svede
EŠEvita Šerpa
Evita Šerpa
EKEvita Kassaliete
Evita Kassaliete
LVLiva Volberga
Liva Volberga
GKGunta Krumina
Gunta Krumina
Uncorrected refractive error and unsatisfactory performance on several clinical accommodation and binocular vision tests are more common in children who struggle with reading. The aim of the current study is to explore the prevalence of accommodative and binocular dysfunctions in children with and without reading difficulties. Reading performance was assessed with the Acadience Reading (formerly DIBELS Next) test adjusted and validated for the Latvian language. Children with (N = 39) and without (N = 43) reading difficulties underwent thorough assessment of their subjective refraction, as well as binocular and accommodation functions. The results demonstrate no difference in the prevalence of complaints between children with and without reading difficulties (26% and 23%, respectively). However, children with reading difficulties more frequently present with significant uncorrected refractive errors and/or accommodative and binocular dysfunctions than children without reading difficulties (69% and 47%, respectively). According to the findings, even in cases where a child does not exhibit any ocular or visual complaints, a comprehensive visual function evaluation should be required for any child who struggles with reading.