• About Us
  • Privacy
  • Contact Us

Contact Lens Update

Clinical Insights Based in Current Research

Search Our Site

  • Home
  • Browse Past Issues
  • Resource Library
  • Back to Basics
  • Useful Links
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Conference Highlights

Visual characteristics of varsity athletes

June 17th, 2015
Kristine DaltonKristine Dalton is an Assistant Professor at the University of Waterloo School of Optometry & Vision Science. She created the Vision & Motor Performance Lab in 2013 and the Sports Vision Clinic in 2014.

Download the poster (.pdf) which was originally shared at the American Academy of Optometry annual meeting in 2014.


Visual characteristics of varsity athletes
Kristine Dalton1, Michael Cinelli2, S. Khizer Khaderi3, Amy Willms1
1VAMP Lab, School of Optometry & Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Canada
2Kinesiology & Physical Education, Wilfred Laurier University, Canada
3Ophthalmology, UC Davis Health System, USA

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of a vision screening program for varsity athletes at the University of Waterloo (UW). Vision screenings are part of a 4-step sports vision program conducted with UW Warrior athletics and are used to identify vision problems that require further examination. The complete program includes vision screenings, full eye exams, sports vision assessments and vision training.
Methods: Vision screenings were conducted over 4 days at UW. Screenings consisted of: a brief history questionnaire, logMAR visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), autorefraction, binocular vision (BV), stereopsis, colour vision (CV), eye-hand (EH) and eye-foot (EF) visual-motor reaction times (RT), coincidence anticipation (CA), King-Devick concussion test (KD), balance and ocular health. Athletes passed (current eye exam, no vision problems) or failed (outdated eye exam and/or vision problems) based on their results.
Results: 79 athletes from 17 different sports participated in the screenings. 34 passed and were offered training; 45 failed and required a full eye exam before training. 27 had outdated eye exams (>2yrs), 5 had no eye exam. 36 reported vision symptoms everyday, 29 reported vision symptoms in sport. VA and CS were normal (OU-VA = -0.09±0.12, Range: 0.42 to -0.28; OU-CS = 1.78±0.16, Range: 1.05 to 2.20). Mean refractive error was OD: -0.47D±-0.58Dx110, OS: -0.47D±-0.61Dx79. BV was abnormal in 1 athlete but stereopsis (28.7±12.9sec) was normal overall. Ocular health was normal in all athletes, but 1 CV defect was found. EH-RT, EF-RT, CA, KD and balance results appeared to be within normal limits.
Conclusions: Over half of the varsity athletes examined in this program (56%) failed their vision screening. Outdated eye exams (34%) and visual symptoms (36-46%) were the most common reasons for failing. In addition to identifying athletes in need of full eye exams, this vision screening program allowed for the collection of a large amount of normative data on sport-specific visual function tests. This data can now be used to help determine population norms on these tests for future use.

Related Articles

  • June 17, 2015

    Sports vision in practice?

  • June 17, 2015

    Visual characteristics of varsity athletes

  • June 17, 2015

    Research brief: Assessing the visual needs of patients who are serious about sports

  • June 17, 2015

    The visual function of Olympic-level athletes

Issues

  • Multifocal Contact Lenses
  • Artificial Tears: An Update
  • Myopia: New Evidence and Best Practices
  • Neuropathic Pain
  • Specialty Rigid Lenses
  • Contact lens compliance
  • Pandemic update
  • Digital Devices and Dry Eye: A Growing Issue
  • The long and short of axial length
  • Using BCLA CLEAR with your patients
  • Helping your patients through allergy season
  • Getting the measure of meibomian glands
  • 2020: An extraordinary year
  • Scleral lens update
  • A dose of myopia
  • New news since TFOS DEWS II
  • COVID-19 Special Edition
  • Material considerations
  • Putting dry eye theory into practice
  • Getting started with Ortho-K
  • Infiltrates – an update
  • Staining
  • Myopia matters: Summarising the IMI reports
  • Lids and contact lenses
  • Myths
  • Revisiting patient compliance
  • Contact Lenses & Kids
  • Interprofessional Collaboration
  • Digital eye strain
  • New Dry Eye Technology
  • Update on Presbyopia
  • Taking stock of dry eye disease: DEWS II
  • Scleral Lenses
  • Pain and Sensation
  • Lab measurements in clinical practice
  • Control of pediatric myopia
  • Nutrition
  • Rethinking contact lens deposits
  • Extended wear
  • Daily Disposables
  • Eyelash Mites (Demodex)
  • Outsmarting bacteria with new technology
  • Youth and contact lenses
  • Sports Vision
  • Ocular effects of UV radiation from the sun
  • Eyelid Conditions
  • Makeup: Impact on ocular health
  • Myopia Control – Update 2014
  • The Growing Prevalence of Myopia
  • Cosmetic contact lenses
  • Contact lens discomfort – The essentials
  • Technology and contact lens research
  • It's A Question of Comfort
  • Contact lens materials
  • Let's talk about SICS
  • Conjunctival Controversies
  • Kids & Contact Lenses
  • One-day silicone hydrogel lenses
  • Solutions
  • Spotlight on Scleral lenses
  • Drug delivery via contact lenses
  • Ocular allergies
  • Reducing lens case contamination
  • Dry eye and meibomium gland dysfunction
  • Myopia Control
  • Presbyopia
  • Compliance and non-compliance
  • Lens care
  • Celebrating 50 years of contact lenses

Looking for another article?

Alcon coopervision Johnson&Johnson Vision Care

Newsletter Sign-Up

Sign-up for and start receiving our newsletter.

Site Map

  • Home
  • Browse Past Issues
    • Editorial
    • Feature Article
    • Clinical Insight
    • Conference Highlights
  • Resource Library
  • Back to Basics
  • Useful Links
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
© 2023 Contact Lens Update