Mental health concerns have emerged at the university level, with the psychological well-being of students being increasingly affected. This cross-sectional study investigated the proportion of university students having anxiety, and its effects on their visual function and symptomatology. We included 41 students (26.1 ± 4.8 years), and their visual function was assessed through several tests to produce a general visual performance index (VPI). The visual symptomatology was studied using the Conlon Visual Discomfort Survey and the Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire. The students were classified into two groups according to the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) test (“no anxiety” and “anxiety” groups). The visual function evaluation indicated significantly worse VPI in the anxiety group (p = 0.047). These students also showed significantly higher scores in the Conlon survey (p = 0.004) and two subscales of the QoV questionnaire: symptom severity (p = 0.041) and symptom bothersomeness (p = 0.013). Moreover, the multiple linear regression model showed a significant association between visual discomfort according to the Conlon questionnaire and the level of anxiety (r = 0.405; R² = 0.164; B = 0.405; p = 0.012). It is important to study the influence of psychological factors on vision, not only for refractive error, but also for binocular and accommodative disorders.

The aim of this study was to analyse the relationship between fine motor skills (FMSs) and visual performance. Thirty young participants with normal binocular vision performed five fine motor tasks: Purdue, Grooved, and O’Connor pegboards, a needle threading task, and a water pouring task, which were characterised by the time taken to complete the task, the number of pegs inserted, the error made in pouring the water, and the volume spilled. To evaluate visual performance, near visual acuity, near contrast sensitivity (CS), and disability glare were assessed. Fine motor skills and visual performance were assessed under monocular and binocular viewing conditions. An overall visual performance score (OVPS) and an overall fine motor skills score (OFMSS) were calculated. All visual functions measured binocularly were better than in monocular conditions, and all FMSs tasks were performed worse monocularly than binocularly (p < 0.001), except for the error made in the water pouring task (p = 0.024). There was a positive correlation between OVPS and OFMSS (rho = 0.329; p = 0.010). The regression model showed that the OFMSS can be predicted by age and CS at 21.3%. Individuals with normal binocular vision and better near visual function exhibit superior fine motor abilities. CS stands out as the visual function that has the greatest bearing on the performance of FMSs.

The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of a moderate breath–alcohol content (BrAC of 0.40 mg/L) on binocular visual performance for different visual functions after inducing different levels of interocular differences with the use of filters. A total of 26 healthy young subjects were enrolled. The participants participated in two sessions: one without alcohol consumption and another after alcohol consumption. In each session and for the different filter conditions (subjects were wearing Bangerter foil of 0.8 and BPM2 fog filter on the dominant eye), monocular and binocular visual function was evaluated by measuring visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, visual discrimination capacity (and successively by calculating their corresponding binocular summations) and stereopsis (near and distance stereoacuity). In addition, interocular differences were calculated for different retinal–image quality and straylight parameters. All monocular and binocular visual functions were analyzed and stereopsis was significantly impaired by alcohol and filters (p < 0.05). Interocular differences for different ocular parameters and binocular summations for visual parameters were negatively affected by filters but not alcohol. Significant correlations (averaging all the experimental conditions analyzed) were found, highlighting: the higher the interocular differences, the lower the binocular summation and the poorer the stereopsis and, therefore, the worse the binocular visual performance.

Purpose: To analyze the influence of simulated impaired binocular vision on visual performance and fine motor skills (FMS). Methods: A total of 33 young and healthy participants were included. A Bangerter foil 0.8 was employed to induce impaired binocular vision. Visual performance was assessed randomized, under three binocular viewing conditions: binocular baseline, wearing a Bangerter foil on dominant eye, and wearing Bangerter foils on both eyes, by visual functions: visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, disability glare, and stereopsis. Five tests evaluated fine motor skills: Purdue, O´Connor, and Grooved Pegboard; water pouring and threading task. The Overall Visual Performance Score (OVPS) and Overall Fine Motor Skills Score (OFMSS) were calculated. Results: Binocular visual performance was significantly worse when deterioration was induced simultaneously on both eyes for all visual functions tested ( p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in visual acuity and near contrast sensitivity between deteriorated conditions in only one eye and baseline. However, the two visual impairment conditions differed significantly, except for stereoacuity. For FMS, the deterioration factor was also significant ( p < 0.05). In terms of OVPS and OFMSS, the greater the induced binocular dysfunction, the worse the visual performance and ability to perform fine motor tasks (rho = 0.334; p < 0.001). Conclusions: These findings suggest that mild monocular or binocular induced impairments have an impact on the visual functions measured and also have a marked effect on the performance of manual tasks that require fine motor skills. These results may be comparable to those from patients with recent-onset edema or cataracts; nevertheless, a full reproduction of the optical and neural effects of genuine pathology by the simulations is not achieved.

Purpose: To explore the agreement among tear break-up time measurements performed by novice examiners using manual non-invasive tear break-up time (mNIBUT), automated non-invasive tear break-up time (aNIBUT) and fluorescein tear break-up time (FBUT), and to examine the association between tear film metrics and symptoms. Methods: A total of 61 volunteers (44 females) with a mean age of 21.5 ± 2.7 years underwent tear-film assessment performed by novice examiners (undergraduate students). The tear volume (Schirmer test), tear film stability by mNIBUT, aNIBUT and FBUT, along with lipid layer pattern, were assessed. Symptoms associated with tear-film quality and ocular surface discomfort were evaluated using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire. Results: Normal values were seen in 88.5%, 93.4%, 73.8% and 39.3% of participants using the Schirmer test, FBUT, mNIBUT and aNIBUT, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for tear break-up measurements indicated poor reliability between tests, except when comparing mNIBUT and FBUT (ICC = 0.67 and 0.60 for averaged and first measurements, respectively). Bland–Altman analysis showed that the 95% limits of agreement for mNIBUT-aNIBUT and FBUT-aNIBUT were wider than those for FBUT-mNIBUT. The lack of agreement did not change when averaging the three measurements. Results from the OSDI indicated that most participants did not report symptoms. No significant correlations were observed between the OSDI total score and any of the tear metrics ( p > 0.05). The aNIBUT demonstrated the best agreement with symptoms in this young and largely asymptomatic population. Conclusions: Tear break-up time measurements obtained by novice examiners showed limited reliability and agreement when comparing traditional methods (FBUT and mNIBUT) and the aNIBUT. Examiner-related variability may influence the assessment of tear-film stability, although causal inferences regarding examiner experience cannot be established from this study design. Repeating measurements did not improve the reliability and agreement between tests when performed by novice examiners.