Evidence-based classification in golf for athletes with a vision impairment: A Delphi study.

Vision-impaired (VI) golf is a global para-sport currently played under several different classification systems under different bodies. This study aimed to gather expert opinion to determine whether the current classification systems are fit for the purpose intended and to identify any particular issues where VI impacts the game of golf for the disabled (G4D). A panel of 20 participants with expertise in G4D took part in a three-round Delphi study. The panel agreed that the current classification system(s) for VI golf did not or only partially fulfilled the aim to minimise the impact of VI on the outcome of competition and that there should be one, internationally recognised, classification system. It was agreed that other metrics of VI, in addition to the measurement of visual acuity (VA), need to be considered. Intentional misrepresentation of VI was identified as a cause for concern. The panel agreed that the current classification system does not fully achieve its purpose. Any changes that are made to these classification systems need to be evidence based specific to VI golf. Further research is required to determine how measures of VI affect golfing performance and whether other metrics other than VA are required.

The effect of image resolution of display types on accommodative microfluctuations.

PURPOSE: To determine whether accommodative microfluctuations (AMFs) are affected by the image resolution of the display type being observed. The effect of refractive error is also examined. METHODS: Twenty participants, (10 myopes and 10 emmetropes) observed a target on four different displays: paper, smartphone, e-reader and visual display unit screen (VDU), whilst their accommodative responses were measured using a continuous recording infrared autorefractor. The accommodative response and AMF measures comprising low frequency components (LFC), high frequency components (HFC) and the root mean square (RMS) of the AMFs were analysed. RESULTS: A significant increase in LFC power was observed for the paper stimulus when compared to the VDU and smartphone conditions. Myopes demonstrated a significantly higher LFC and mean accommodative response compared to emmetropes across the four displays. A significant difference in the mean AR between the displays with the lowest and highest resolution was found. A higher mean AR was found with higher resolution of the image. The HFC and RMS accommodation were not affected by display type. CONCLUSION: The mean accommodative response and the mean LFC power appear to respond differently depending on the type of display in use. Higher resolution devices showed a reduced lag of accommodation to the accommodative demand; however, this may cause a lead of accommodation in myopes for higher resolution display types.

Cognitive Demand and Accommodative Microfluctuations.

Previous studies have shown cognition to have an influence on accommodation. Temporal variation in the accommodative response occurs during the fixation on a stationary target. This constantly shifting response has been called accommodative micro-fluctuations (AMFs). The aim of this study is to determine the effects of increasing task cognitive demand on the ocular accommodation response. AMFs for 12 myopes and 12 emmetropes were measured under three conditions of varying cognitive demand and comprising reading of numbers (Num), simple arithmetic (SA), and complex arithmetic (CA). Fast Fourier transforms were used to analyze the different frequency band components of the AMFs. Other aspects of AMFs including root mean square accommodation values and chaos analysis was applied. A repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of cognition in the mean power of the high frequency component (HFC) (F2,44 = 10.03, p < 0.005). Pairwise analyses revealed that these differences exist between SA and CA tasks (p < 0.005) and the Num and CA (p < 0.005) tasks with the HFC power being the highest for the CA condition. It appears that the difficulty of a task does affect active accommodation but to a lesser extent than other factors affecting accommodation.