不同助视器在低视力学生阅读康复中的应用

A comparison of low vision aids for reading rehabilitation in low vision students

目的明确新型非球面光学助视器与电子助视器在低视力学生阅读康复方面的作用，为临床及低视力康复工作提供参考。方法前瞻性临床对照研究。选取广州市培英职业学校的低视力学生30例，年龄（21．1±3．0）岁。每名受检者分别在不使用助视器、使用新型非球面光学助视器和便携式电子助视器3种条件下阅读。记录不同条件下受检者的持续时间、阅读距离、阅读速度、换行时间和错误率。数据比较采用单因素方差分析，两两比较采用Bonferrolai法检验。结果不使用助视器、使用新型非球面光学助视器和便携式电子助视器在阅读持续时间[（4．35±2．82）min vs（7．27±4．50）min vs 5．（10．71±3．09）min，F=4．60，P〈0．011，阅读距离『（7．44±4．40）cm/vs．（13．38±7．07）cm vs．（20．97±6．84）cm，vs 11．21．P〈0．01】，阅读速度[（35．64±24．01）字／minUS．（49．41±24．96）字／min vs．（65．59±20．03）字／min，肚13．77，P〈0．011、换行时间[（1．52±1．13）S眠（2．24±1．25）SYS．（3．42±0．94）S，F=7．40，P〈0．01]和错误率[（10．34_＋11．01）％VS．（5．84±3．61）％1）3．（5．26±2．72）％，F=I．79，P〈0．05）1上的差异有统计学意义。其中便携式电子助视器在阅读持续时间、阅读距离、阅读速度上均优于新型非球面光学助视器（P〈0．0167）；新型非球面光学助视器在阅读持续时间、阅读距离、阅读速度上优于不使用助视器（P〈0．0167）；在错误率上便携式电子助视器、不使用助视器与新型非球面光学助视器相比差异无统计学意义（P〉0．0167），便携式电子助视器错误率低于不使用助视器（P〈0．0167）。换行时间上便携式电子助视器、新型非球面光学助视器长于不使用助视器（P〈0．0167），便携式电子助视器长于新型非球面光学助视器（P〈0．0167）。结论助视器对于低视力学生在阅读上有很大的帮助；便携式电子助视器总体上明显优于新型非球面光学助视器。

Objective To study the effectiveness of 2 different low vision aids for reading rehabilitation： the aspheric optical aid and the portable electronic aid; to provide guidelines for visual rehabilitation. Methods This was a prospective case-control study. Thirty students were selected from the Peiying Vocational School to participate in the study. Subjects read material under 3 conditions： no low visual aid （NL）, the new aspheric optical low vision aid （NA） and the portable electronic low vision aid （PE）. The reading order was randomly established before the test. A voice recorder was used to record and measure reading distance when subjects read the material. After each trial, students were asked which low vision aid was better. Reading duration, reading distance, reading speed, line changing time and error rate were calculated. Finally, SPSS 13.0 software was used to analyze the data from the trials in a one-way ANOVA. Results There were significant differences in reading duration （4.35±2.82 min vs. 7.27±4.50 min vs. 10.71±3.09 rain, F=4.60, P〈 0.01）, reading distance （7.44±4.40 cm vs. 13.38±7.07 cm vs. 20.97±6.84 cm, F=ll.21, P〈0.01）, reading speed （35.64±24.01 words/rain vs. 49.41±24.96 words/min vs. 65.59±20.03 words/rain, F= 13.77, P〈0.01）, line changing time （1.52±1.13 s vs. 2.24-±1.25 s vs. 3.42_±0.94 s, F=7.40, P〈0.01） and error rate （10.34±11.01% vs. 5.84±3.61% vs. 5.26_±2.72%, F=1.79, P=0.03） under the 3 conditions. PE was significantly superior to NA in reading duration （P〈0.0167）, reading distance （P〈0.0167）, and reading speed （P〈0.0167）. NA was significantly superior to NL in reading duration （P〈0.0167）, reading distance （P〈0.0167）, and reading speed （P〈0.0167）. PE was not significantly superior to NA （P〉0.0167） and NA was not significantly superior to NL in error rate （P〉0.0167）. However, PE was significantly superior to NL （P〈0.0167）. PE took significantly longer than NL （P〈0.0167） and NA （P〈0.0167） for line changing time. NA took significantly longer than NL for line changing time （P〈0.0167）. Conclusion Low vision aids are very helpful for low vision students in reading, and the portable electronic low vision aid was superior to the new aspheric low vision aid in reading rehabilitation.