ClinicalTrials.gg
Sign In
TerminatedNCT02925884Updated Jul 16, 2025Results posted

Effects of Gunnar Computer Glasses on Viewing Comfort and Performance

An interventional study of Gunnar OTC Glasses in Dry Eye, Eye Strain and Visual Acuity, sponsored by Pacific University. Terminated at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 42 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-07-16.

Sponsored by Pacific University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other

Why this study was terminated
The sponsor failed to provide financial support as promised.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
35
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 42 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The proposed study aims to test if Gunnar computer glasses provide any advantages, in comparison to no glasses, on the following aspects in computer-related office work:

  • Any enhancement on the visual performance of the basic visual function, including visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, color discrimination, etc.
  • Any enhancement on the visual performance of typical office work, including reading, word-spelling check, number searching, or target identification.
  • Any benefit in objective viewing comfort measured with viewing distance, blink frequency, post-viewing pupil size.
  • Any benefit in subjective viewing comfort reflected on the questionnaire of viewing symptom survey.
  • Any benefit in viewing comfort and visual performance with increased environmental ventilation or under the strong glare.
  • Any benefit in life quality from daily wearing (e.g., better comfort or sleep quality).
Read the detailed description

\<Introduction>

When performing near work, one must focus at (accommodate) and point toward (converge) at a closer distance and constantly re-focus the eyes to see small text and images with clarity. Sustaining such efforts can lead to eye fatigue and eye strain, among a host of vision problems. Most visual tasks on a screen also demand heightened visual concentration, and this decreases blink rate. Working in a heated or air-conditioned office environment leads to over-evaporation of the tear film, and lipid deficiency, irritation, and dryness to the corneal surface are expected. Disruptive glare from excessive screen reflection and ambient lighting also deteriorates the image quality and heaps on viewing discomfort. Extensive screen viewing also exacerbates discomfort in people with existing vision problems like eye muscle imbalance, astigmatism, farsightedness, and presbyopia. Since technology is almost unavoidable to modern life, preventions should be taken to lessen the total toll on the eyes and visual system. Gunnar computer glasses address the above issues by providing mild yellow tint anti-reflection coating to shield the harmful blue light and lessen strong glare. The glasses also have a small amount of magnification (+0.5 D) to enhance acuity. The curved frame is designed to retain moisture and reduce dry eye symptoms. All these special characters are devised to enhance visual performance and minimize eye fatigue and visual discomfort in digital viewing. The current study aimed to validate the benefits mentioned above.

Gunnar over-the-counter (OTC) computer glasses adopt yellow lenses to cut off the active short wavelength and lessen the bright glare, which often induces the detrimental effect caused by excessive illumination or intense scattered reflection. While the benefit of glare reduction is well received, the benefit on visual performance has been inconclusive. Some studies reported a significant enhancement in contrast sensitivity, but some failed to see any improvement in visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, even with color distortion. Without argument, tinted lenses reduce the transmittance of the visible spectrum and change the visible color to a certain degree. However, there has been a report that reducing the retinal illumination level does not necessarily lead to reduced brightness; instead, the visual system automatically adjusts for the illumination discounting, possibly with the help of increased pupil size. In addition, with the decrement of blue lights arriving at the eyes, both scattered reflection and chromatic aberration are reduced. Together, it is reasonable to believe that the visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and chromatic discrimination will not suffer and may, instead, benefit from the filter of yellow lenses. These basic visual functions may, in turn, lead to enhancement in general visual performance such as routine office work. These will be tested in the proposed study.

The current study tested if Gunnar's OTC computer glasses provide any advantages, in comparison to no glasses, on the following aspects in computer-related office work:

  • Any enhancement on the visual performance of the basic visual function, including visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, color discrimination, etc.
  • Any enhancement on the visual performance of typical office work, including reading, word-spelling check, number searching, or target identification.
  • Any benefit in preventing dry eye by measuring the humidity outside and inside the frame (only in the visit with Gunnar glasses) and the tear film break-up time after viewing for a prolonged period.
  • Any benefit in objective viewing comfort measured with viewing distance, blink frequency, post-viewing pupil size.
  • Any benefit in subjective viewing comfort reflected on the questionnaire of viewing symptom survey.
  • Any benefit in viewing comfort and visual performance with increased environmental ventilation.
  • Any benefit in viewing comfort and visual performance with increased environment under the intense glare.
  • Any benefit in life quality from daily wearing (e.g., viewing comfort, sleep quality, or quantity due to the amount of stimulation from blue light)?
  • Their willingness to purchase (select) the tested Gunnar OTC glasses and the price willing to pay for.

\<Study design>

Thirty-four subjects, age 18 to 42, were planned to be recruited. This sample size is based on a priori power analysis with 80% and a medium effect size at alpha equal to 0.05. Subjects will be stratified into four age groups. An about equal number (8±1) of subjects should have been recruited for each group:

  • 18-23 yr old
  • 24-29 yr old
  • 30-35 yr old
  • 36-42 yr old

Each subject was scheduled for three visits: Visit 1 for screening and consenting, visit 2 for lab test after treatment 1, and visit 3 for lab test after treatment 2. Between visits was an adaptation period for the assigned treatment.

Visit 1: A screening visit

  • Day 1, when a subject first joins the study
  • Obtain informed consent and screening measurements (VA, contrast sensitivity, tear film break-up time as dry eye measurement, Dry eye questionnaire (OSDI), viewing symptom survey (VSS), history of dry eye, and computer work behavior).
  • At the end of the visit, half of the subjects were given a pair of Gunnar OTC glasses for adaptation for 3 - 7 days; the other half were given no treatment. All subjects were told to work in front of a computer for at least 4 hours a day, with the assigned glasses if given.

Adaptation 1:

- Starting on Day 1, for 3 to 7 days, the subject was asked to work in front of computers for at least 4 hours each day with assigned treatment 1.

Visit 2: Lab test for treatment 1

  • On a day between day four and day 8 convenient to the subject, the subject came to the lab with the assigned glasses condition.
  • Baseline measurements will be taken, followed by a few visual tasks under three viewing conditions. The subject was asked to fill out the VSS, given a break, before being tested on another round of tasks under a different viewing condition.
  • The total testing time is about 70 minutes for each condition and about 4 hours to complete the visit.
  • The lab testing procedure is described below.
  • At the end of visit 2, treatment was alternated for another 3-7 days of adaptation.

Adaptation 2 with treatment 2:

- Starting on the day of Visit 2 after the test, the subject adapts to the second treatment (with Gunnar glasses or without any glasses) for another 3 to 7 days.

Visit 3: Lab test for treatment 2

  • The same procedure of Visit 2 was repeated.
  • Subject was asked to rate their preference of wearing the Gunnar Glasses over no-glasses when performing computer tasks.
  • After this visit, the study was completed for the subject.

Details of lab testing procedures:

  • The study adopted a crossover design. Each subject went through three viewing conditions (control, bright light, strong ventilating) based on a Latin Square order.

    1. In the control condition, the subject will perform all tasks under regular office lighting (500 lux) and the default lab ventilation condition.
    2. In the bright light condition, the ambient light will be increased to 1500 lux.

    3. In the strong ventilation condition, a ceiling fan will be positioned on top of the subject at the ceiling light location to increase the airflow.

      Visual performance tasks:

  • Baseline measurements (10 min): Upon arrival, the subject was asked to fill out VSS and OSDI. Measurements of dry eye condition, pupil size, accommodation status, and blink rate were taken as the baseline for a visit.

  • Under viewing condition 1:

    1. Visual tasks (60 minutes): Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, color perception, visual search of numbers among a number matrix, low-contrast target search, text reading, and spelling check were performed by a fixed order.
    2. Post-task measurements of dry eye measure (Tear break uptime), pupil size, accommodation, and blink rate, as well as VSS were taken.
  • Break time of 5-10 minutes.
  • Repeat the above procedures for the other two viewing conditions.
  • Total time for one lab visit was about 4 hours.
02

Conditions studied

  • Dry Eye
  • Eye Strain
  • Visual Acuity
  • Color Perception

Keywords

  • Computer Glasses
  • Dry eye
  • Eye strain
  • Gunnar Glasses
03

In context

Dry Eye Syndromes

1,366 studies on the registry are indexed under Dry Eye Syndromes; 207 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 35 is below the median of 60 across 1,129 interventional studies indexed under Dry Eye Syndromes.

Browse Dry Eye Syndromes studies →

Lead sponsor

Pacific University is the lead sponsor of 14 studies on the registry; 2 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 42 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Subjects must be between 18 to 42 years old.
  • Subjects must have a normal color vision (be able to identify the numbers in the color blind test.
  • Subjects' near and far visual acuity with the better eye needs to be 20/25 or better (measured with a vision chart). Subjects can wear contact lenses (but not glasses) if usually wear them while working on computers.
  • Subjects must routinely work on a computer or digital display for an average of 4 hours or more each day.
  • Subjects can communicate in English fluently and are used to read English documents on a computer.
  • Subjects must have a valid tax number or social security number to receive monetary compensation.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • The difference in the prescription for both eyes is equal to or larger than 2 Diopters.
  • Subjects have a cataract or have had cataract surgery.
  • Subjects are sensitive to lights (photosensitivity).
  • Subjects have prior incidents or are known to have claustrophobia.
  • Subjects have been diagnosed with oculomotor diseases or central nervous system diseases, or with developmental, neurological, or psychiatric disorders (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, mental retardation).
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Other
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Crossover assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
35 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Experimenter: Gunnar OTC Glasses, Then Control

    On Visit 1, after the screening and baseline measurements, participants were given a pair of Gunnar OTC glasses (Intervention 1) and asked to work on the computer with the glasses for at least 4 hours for 5+/-2 days of adaptation (Habituation 1). On Visit 2, they performed the designated computer tasks with the glasses to complete the Gunnar condition. Then they were asked to work on the computers for at least 4 hours without any glasses (Intervention 2) for another 5+/-2 days (Habituation 2). On Visit 3, they performed the same tasks without any glasses to complete the Control condition. Then Participants responded if they prefer wearing the Gunnar OTC Glasses when working on a computer.

    Device: Gunnar OTC Glasses

  • Experimental
    Experimenter: Control, Then Gunnar OTC Glasses

    On Visit 1, after the screening and baseline measurements, participants were told to work on the computer for at least 4 hours without glasses (Intervention 1) for 5+/-2 days of adaptation (Habituation 1). On Visit 2, they performed the designated computer tasks without glasses to complete the Control condition. Then they were given a pair of Gunnar OTC Glasses to wear (Intervention 2) while working on the computers for 4+ hours daily for another 5+/-2 days (Habituation 2). On Visit 3, they performed the same tasks with the Gunnar glasses to complete the Gunnar condition. Then Participants responded if they prefer wearing the Gunnar OTC Glasses when working on a computer.

    Device: Gunnar OTC Glasses

Interventions

  • DeviceGunnar OTC Glasses

    Gunnar Over-the-Counter Computer Glasses have optical power of 0.5 diopters for reducing accommodation demands at a typical computer-viewing distance. The lens also have a partially transmissive yellow tinting and anti-reflective coating for filtering part of the spectral peaks in typical fluorescent or incandescent light. The frame has a wrape-around design meant to reduce air flow in the vicinity of the eyes.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Subjective Rating of Gunnar Computer Glasses Preference

    At the end of the study in Visit 3, subjects were asked to respond if they felt the Gunnar TC Glasses improved their computer viewing comfort and visual performance (choose between "Yes" and "No").

    Time frame: at the end of the study in Visit 3, up to day 16

Secondary outcomes

  1. Subjective Viewing Discomfort Rating

    Subjective rating of viewing comfort on the Viewing Symptom Survey (15 items, 5-pt Likert scale, 0: no discomfort; 4: extremely discomfort). Factor Analysis reduced the information dimension from 15 items to 5 factors: 1. Decreased cognitive function: sleepy, can't concentrate, can't think clearly, difficulty to remember 2. Eyestrain: eye strain, tired eyes 3. Physical discomfort: body discomfort, neckache, headache 4. Decreased visual function: blurry, double vision, can't focus, moving text 5. Poor balance: vertigo, dizzy A factor score is a linear transformation of the variables with weights. Its unit is arbitrary and meaningless; no min or max. However, as the values (correlation between variable and factor) in the Structure Matrix are positive, the sign of the factor is the same as the variables. Positive larger values mean more discomfort. A linear mixed model compares the relative impact of the interventions (Gunnar OTC glasses vs. Control\_No glasses) on each factor.

    Time frame: Data were collected at the end of Visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and Visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, up to Day 16).

  2. Visual Acuity

    The participant's ability to identify high-contrast objects was measured in Visits 2 and 3. Measurements were recorded in the logarithmic Measure of Angle of Resolution (logMAR) scale, in which each 'line' of the symbols on a vision chart corresponds to a unit of 0.1 and represents a 10-fold difference in acuity compared to the adjacent line of the vision. Normal (6/6 or 20/20) vision in Snellen notation equals 0.0 logMAR (logarithmic of 1.0 arc minute or 1/60 of a degree). A negative logMAR value means better than normal (20/20) vision, and a smaller logMAR represents better vision in distinguishing finer details.

    Time frame: during Visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and Visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, up to Day 16)

  3. Color Perception

    Participants' best performance in discriminating the number of color saturation levels was measured during visits 2 and 3. In each trial, six circles of the same color in 1-6 shades were presented. Participants responded with the number of color shades presented. Four colors (red, green, blue, and gray) were tested and analyzed separately. Performance in gray was used as the covariate for analysis.

    Time frame: during Visit 2 (at leadays after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and Visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, up to Day 16)

  4. Spelling Check Accuracy

    subject's accuracy in spelling check.

    Time frame: Performance was measured during visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, up to Day 16).

  5. Dry Eye Measurements (1): Tear Film Break-up Time (Seconds)

    Tear film break-up time (TBUT) measures the duration the tear covers the cornea surface fully until it evaporates. It reflects the stability of the tear film and is commonly used in clinics to check for evaporative dry eye syndrome. In testing for TBUT, sodium fluorescein dye is added to the eye, and the tear film is observed under the slit lamp while the patient avoids blinking until tiny dry spots develop. Larger numbers mean the tear stays on the cornea surface longer and is less severe for dry eye symptoms. Usually, TBUT values range from 3-132 seconds (average 27 seconds). TBUT less than 10 seconds suggests an abnormal tear film, 5-10 seconds considered marginal, and less than 5 seconds indicative of dry eye.

    Time frame: during Visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and Visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, upto Day 16)

  6. Contrast Sensitivity

    The participant's ability to identify low-contrast objects was measured in Visits 2 and 3. A letter contrast sensitivity test by M\&S Technology measures the subject's ability to detect objects without a clear outline and distinguish them from their background. The M\&S Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test uses standard Snellen and Sloan Letters presented at contrast levels from 100% to 0.8%, with smaller numbers indicating better performance (better contrast sensitivity).

    Time frame: during Visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and Visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, up to Day 16)

  7. Spelling Check Speed (Words Per Minute, WPM)

    This measures the subject's speed (words per minute) in spelling check. Higher values mean better performance or more words being checked within one minute.

    Time frame: Performance was measured during visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, up to Day 16).

  8. Dry Eye Measurements 2: Tear Osmolarity Index Measured With TearLab

    Tear osmolarity measures the number of milliosmoles of the solutes (e.g., salt) per liter (mOsm/L) of tear. Normal values range from 275 to 295 mOsm/L. Higher values indicate higher concentrations of electrolytes in the tear, which reflect worse dry eye conditions. A diagnosis of dry eye syndrome is made if the osmolarity of either eye is larger than 308 mOsm/L, or when the difference in measured osmolarity between eyes is \>8 mOsmol/L

    Time frame: during Visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and Visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, upto Day 16)

  9. Dry Eye Measurements (3): Rating of the Corneal Integrity With Lissamine Green Staining (0-4, Lower is Better)

    A score on a scale (0-4, lower number indicating a better, healthier cornea); A subjective grade on the Corneal Integrity Rating with Lissamine Green Evaluation Form, which is a clinical grading system used to assess the health and integrity of the corneal surface, particularly focusing on ocular surface damage, dryness, or irritation. It has 5 levels (0-4), with lower numbers being better. Here is the description of each level: 0: No staining; corneal surface completely intact, no signs of damage. Best possible score. 1. Minimal staining; few scattered dots of stain, very mild damage or dryness. 2. Moderate staining; more noticeable punctate staining but no confluent areas. 3. Marked staining; numerous punctate stains, possible small areas of confluent staining. 4. Severe staining; large confluent areas of stain, significant epithelial damage. Worst score.

    Time frame: during Visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and Visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, upto Day 16)

  10. Dry Eye Measurements (4): Blink Duration (Milliseconds) Measured Through Real-time Blink-contingent Visual Acuity Task

    While the subject detected the orientation of a tumbling E, we measured the average interval between two blinks. Larger numbers mean a longer duration of a blink sustained.

    Time frame: during Visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and Visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, upto Day 16)

07

Results

Posted Jul 16, 2025

Participant flow

35 participants were screened and enrolled between June 28, 2013 and September 30th, 2013 in the Vision Performance Institute research lab in Scott Hall 129 at Pacific University Forest Grove Campus.

Visit 1: Screening & Give Intervention 1
Participant flow — Visit 1: Screening & Give Intervention 1
MilestoneGunnar OTC Glasses, Then ControlControl, Then Gunnar OTC Glasses
Started1718
Completed1718
Not completed00
Habituation 1
Participant flow — Habituation 1
MilestoneGunnar OTC Glasses, Then ControlControl, Then Gunnar OTC Glasses
Started1718
Completed1718
Not completed00
Visit 2: Lab Test & Give Intervention 2
Participant flow — Visit 2: Lab Test & Give Intervention 2
MilestoneGunnar OTC Glasses, Then ControlControl, Then Gunnar OTC Glasses
Started1718
Completed1718
Not completed00
Habituation 2
Participant flow — Habituation 2
MilestoneGunnar OTC Glasses, Then ControlControl, Then Gunnar OTC Glasses
Started1718
Completed1718
Not completed00
Visit 3: Lab Test 2
Participant flow — Visit 3: Lab Test 2
MilestoneGunnar OTC Glasses, Then ControlControl, Then Gunnar OTC Glasses
Started1718
Completed1718
Not completed00

Outcome measures

PrimarySubjective Rating of Gunnar Computer Glasses Preference

At the end of the study in Visit 3, subjects were asked to respond if they felt the Gunnar TC Glasses improved their computer viewing comfort and visual performance (choose between "Yes" and "No").

Time frame:
at the end of the study in Visit 3, up to day 16
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Subjective Rating of Gunnar Computer Glasses Preference
ParticipantsAge Group 1 (18-23 yo)Age Group 2 (24-29 yo)Age Grup 3 (30-35 yo)Age Group 4 (36-42 yo)
Participant response : Yes6789
Participant response : No3200
SecondarySubjective Viewing Discomfort Rating

Subjective rating of viewing comfort on the Viewing Symptom Survey (15 items, 5-pt Likert scale, 0: no discomfort; 4: extremely discomfort). Factor Analysis reduced the information dimension from 15 items to 5 factors: 1. Decreased cognitive function: sleepy, can't concentrate, can't think clearly, difficulty to remember 2. Eyestrain: eye strain, tired eyes 3. Physical discomfort: body discomfort, neckache, headache 4. Decreased visual function: blurry, double vision, can't focus, moving text 5. Poor balance: vertigo, dizzy A factor score is a linear transformation of the variables with weights. Its unit is arbitrary and meaningless; no min or max. However, as the values (correlation between variable and factor) in the Structure Matrix are positive, the sign of the factor is the same as the variables. Positive larger values mean more discomfort. A linear mixed model compares the relative impact of the interventions (Gunnar OTC glasses vs. Control\_No glasses) on each factor.

Time frame:
Data were collected at the end of Visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and Visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, up to Day 16).
Reported as:
Mean · factor score
Subjective Viewing Discomfort Rating
factor scoreGunnar OTC GlassesControl
Decreased cognitive function-0.128 ± 0.1090.154 ± 0.111
Eyestrain-0.228 ± 0.0990.239 ± 0.101
Physical discomfort0.132 ± 0.114-0.117 ± 0.115
Decreased visual function-0.187 ± 0.1150.197 ± 0.117
Poor balance-0.107 ± 0.1120.109 ± 0.113
Statistical analysis
  • Gunnar OTC Glasses vs Control · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.011
  • Gunnar OTC Glasses vs Control · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.001
  • Gunnar OTC Glasses vs Control · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.009
  • Gunnar OTC Glasses vs Control · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.001
  • Gunnar OTC Glasses vs Control · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.28
SecondaryVisual Acuity

The participant's ability to identify high-contrast objects was measured in Visits 2 and 3. Measurements were recorded in the logarithmic Measure of Angle of Resolution (logMAR) scale, in which each 'line' of the symbols on a vision chart corresponds to a unit of 0.1 and represents a 10-fold difference in acuity compared to the adjacent line of the vision. Normal (6/6 or 20/20) vision in Snellen notation equals 0.0 logMAR (logarithmic of 1.0 arc minute or 1/60 of a degree). A negative logMAR value means better than normal (20/20) vision, and a smaller logMAR represents better vision in distinguishing finer details.

Time frame:
during Visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and Visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, up to Day 16)
Reported as:
Mean · logMAR
Visual Acuity
logMARGunnar OTC GlassesControl
Visual Acuity-0.474 ± 0.002-.0474 ± 0.002
Statistical analysis
  • Gunnar OTC Glasses vs Control · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.903
SecondaryColor Perception

Participants' best performance in discriminating the number of color saturation levels was measured during visits 2 and 3. In each trial, six circles of the same color in 1-6 shades were presented. Participants responded with the number of color shades presented. Four colors (red, green, blue, and gray) were tested and analyzed separately. Performance in gray was used as the covariate for analysis.

Time frame:
during Visit 2 (at leadays after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and Visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, up to Day 16)
Reported as:
Mean · color saturation shades
Color Perception
color saturation shadesGunnar OTC GlassesControl
Red2.952 ± 0.0593.102 ± 0.059
Green2.935 ± 0.0462.887 ± 0.045
Blue3.404 ± 0.0753.399 ± 0.075
Gray5.320 ± 0.9615.000 ± 0.962
Statistical analysis
  • Gunnar OTC Glasses vs Control · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.009
  • Gunnar OTC Glasses vs Control · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.446
  • Gunnar OTC Glasses vs Control · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.953
SecondarySpelling Check Accuracy

subject's accuracy in spelling check.

Time frame:
Performance was measured during visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, up to Day 16).
Reported as:
Mean · percentage of accuracy
Spelling Check Accuracy
percentage of accuracyGunnar OTC GlassesControl
Spelling Check Accuracy.778 ± .029.812 ± .029
Statistical analysis
  • Gunnar OTC Glasses vs Control · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.266
SecondaryDry Eye Measurements (1): Tear Film Break-up Time (Seconds)

Tear film break-up time (TBUT) measures the duration the tear covers the cornea surface fully until it evaporates. It reflects the stability of the tear film and is commonly used in clinics to check for evaporative dry eye syndrome. In testing for TBUT, sodium fluorescein dye is added to the eye, and the tear film is observed under the slit lamp while the patient avoids blinking until tiny dry spots develop. Larger numbers mean the tear stays on the cornea surface longer and is less severe for dry eye symptoms. Usually, TBUT values range from 3-132 seconds (average 27 seconds). TBUT less than 10 seconds suggests an abnormal tear film, 5-10 seconds considered marginal, and less than 5 seconds indicative of dry eye.

Time frame:
during Visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and Visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, upto Day 16)
Reported as:
Mean · seconds
Dry Eye Measurements (1): Tear Film Break-up Time (Seconds)
secondsGunnar OTC GlassesControl
Dry Eye Measurements (1): Tear Film Break-up Time (Seconds)6.018 ± 0.3476.438 ± 0.336
Statistical analysis
  • Gunnar OTC Glasses vs Control · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.424
SecondaryContrast Sensitivity

The participant's ability to identify low-contrast objects was measured in Visits 2 and 3. A letter contrast sensitivity test by M\&S Technology measures the subject's ability to detect objects without a clear outline and distinguish them from their background. The M\&S Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test uses standard Snellen and Sloan Letters presented at contrast levels from 100% to 0.8%, with smaller numbers indicating better performance (better contrast sensitivity).

Time frame:
during Visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and Visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, up to Day 16)
Reported as:
Mean · contrast ratio expressed in "%"
Contrast Sensitivity
contrast ratio expressed in "%"Gunnar OTC GlassesControl
Contrast Sensitivity1.115 ± 0.0241.145 ± 0.024
Statistical analysis
  • Gunnar OTC Glasses vs Control · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.343
SecondarySpelling Check Speed (Words Per Minute, WPM)

This measures the subject's speed (words per minute) in spelling check. Higher values mean better performance or more words being checked within one minute.

Time frame:
Performance was measured during visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, up to Day 16).
Reported as:
Mean · words per minute
Spelling Check Speed (Words Per Minute, WPM)
words per minuteGunnar OTC GlassesControl
Spelling Check Speed (Words Per Minute, WPM)178.892 ± 7.427183.319 ± 7.285
Statistical analysis
  • Gunnar OTC Glasses vs Control · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.489
SecondaryDry Eye Measurements 2: Tear Osmolarity Index Measured With TearLab

Tear osmolarity measures the number of milliosmoles of the solutes (e.g., salt) per liter (mOsm/L) of tear. Normal values range from 275 to 295 mOsm/L. Higher values indicate higher concentrations of electrolytes in the tear, which reflect worse dry eye conditions. A diagnosis of dry eye syndrome is made if the osmolarity of either eye is larger than 308 mOsm/L, or when the difference in measured osmolarity between eyes is \>8 mOsmol/L

Time frame:
during Visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and Visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, upto Day 16)
Reported as:
Mean · mOsm/L (milliosmoles per liter)
Dry Eye Measurements 2: Tear Osmolarity Index Measured With TearLab
mOsm/L (milliosmoles per liter)Gunnar OTC GlassesControl
Dry Eye Measurements 2: Tear Osmolarity Index Measured With TearLab302.789 ± 1.257303.043 ± 1.257
Statistical analysis
  • Gunnar OTC Glasses vs Control · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.885
SecondaryDry Eye Measurements (3): Rating of the Corneal Integrity With Lissamine Green Staining (0-4, Lower is Better)

A score on a scale (0-4, lower number indicating a better, healthier cornea); A subjective grade on the Corneal Integrity Rating with Lissamine Green Evaluation Form, which is a clinical grading system used to assess the health and integrity of the corneal surface, particularly focusing on ocular surface damage, dryness, or irritation. It has 5 levels (0-4), with lower numbers being better. Here is the description of each level: 0: No staining; corneal surface completely intact, no signs of damage. Best possible score. 1. Minimal staining; few scattered dots of stain, very mild damage or dryness. 2. Moderate staining; more noticeable punctate staining but no confluent areas. 3. Marked staining; numerous punctate stains, possible small areas of confluent staining. 4. Severe staining; large confluent areas of stain, significant epithelial damage. Worst score.

Time frame:
during Visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and Visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, upto Day 16)
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Dry Eye Measurements (3): Rating of the Corneal Integrity With Lissamine Green Staining (0-4, Lower is Better)
score on a scaleGunnar OTC GlassesControl
Dry Eye Measurements (3): Rating of the Corneal Integrity With Lissamine Green Staining (0-4, Lower is Better)2.633 ± 0.1213.025 ± 0.125
Statistical analysis
  • Gunnar OTC Glasses vs Control · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.001
SecondaryDry Eye Measurements (4): Blink Duration (Milliseconds) Measured Through Real-time Blink-contingent Visual Acuity Task

While the subject detected the orientation of a tumbling E, we measured the average interval between two blinks. Larger numbers mean a longer duration of a blink sustained.

Time frame:
during Visit 2 (at least 3 days after Visit 1, between Day 4 and Day 8) and Visit 3 (at least 3 days after Visit 2, upto Day 16)
Reported as:
Mean · milliseconds
Dry Eye Measurements (4): Blink Duration (Milliseconds) Measured Through Real-time Blink-contingent Visual Acuity Task
millisecondsGunnar OTC GlassesControl
Dry Eye Measurements (4): Blink Duration (Milliseconds) Measured Through Real-time Blink-contingent Visual Acuity Task3536.468 ± 222.01433514.788 ± 222.0143
Statistical analysis
  • Gunnar OTC Glasses vs Control · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.359

Adverse events

Collected over Each subject visited the lab three times: for about 30-40 minutes on visit 1 and about 4 hours each on visits 2 and 3. The adverse events were monitored while the subject was participating in the study for up to 16 days.. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Gunnar OTC Glasses0/35 (0%)0/35 (0%)0/35 (0%)
Control0/35 (0%)0/35 (0%)0/35 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)Gunnar OTC Glasses, Then ControlControl, Then Gunnar OTC GlassesTotal
<=18 years000
Between 18 and 65 years171835
>=65 years000
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Gunnar OTC Glasses, Then ControlControl, Then Gunnar OTC GlassesTotal
Female8614
Male91221
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected(Participants)Gunnar OTC Glasses, Then ControlControl, Then Gunnar OTC GlassesTotal
Count of participants——0
08

Study locations

1 site
  • Vision Performance Institute, 129 Scott Hall, Pacific University
    Forest Grove, Oregon 97116, United States
09

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — There is not a plan to make IPD available.

10

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
Not marked actual or estimatedDates not marked actual or estimated

The record gives a start of Jun 2013, a primary completion of Sep 2013 and a completion of Sep 2013. It does not say whether these dates are actual or estimated.

Results were first posted in Jul 2025, 11 years 10 months after primary completion.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Jun 17, 2013
First posted
Oct 6, 2016
Start
Jun 2013
Primary completionActual
Sep 2013
CompletionActual
Sep 2013
Results first posted
Jul 16, 2025
Last update
Jul 16, 2025
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jul 16, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02925884
Lead sponsor
Pacific University
Collaborators
Gunnar Optiks
Responsible party
Yu-Chi Tai (Research Scientist, Pacific University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Oct 6, 2016
Start date
Jun 2013
Primary completion
Sep 2013
Completion
Sep 2013
Results posted
Jul 16, 2025
Last update
Jul 16, 2025

Study contacts

Yu-Chi Tai, PhD
principal investigator · Pacific University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is terminated, as verified in Jun 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Other studies in this condition

Dry Eye Syndromes →

Other studies from this sponsor

Pacific University

Start the discussion