Pilot study investigates intervention effects on visual function in glaucoma and healthy controls, suggesting further research needed.
Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the effects of a 12-week multimodal motor-cognitive and resistance training (MMI) compared to a unimodal resistance training intervention (UMI) on static and dynamic visual function in glaucoma (GLA) patients and healthy controls (HC). Methods: Fifteen GLA and 24 age-matched HC participated in this randomized, controlled longitudinal pilot study. Visual function was assessed using clinical parameters and on a treadmill (TM) while standing (static, S 0 ) as well as during walking at 3.5 km/h (S 3.5 ) and a self-preferred speed (S Self ). The following outcomes were measured pre and post 12-weeks of intervention (MMI or UMI): (a) standard clinical measures and (b) TM-related measures, i.e.: 1) best-corrected visual acuity without (VA S ) and with crowding (VA C ); 2) visual field sensitivity (VF); and 3) contrast sensitivity (CS). A 4-factorial repeated-measures ANOVA (SPEED [S 0 ; S 3.5 ; S Self ] × TIME [pre; post] × INTERVENTION [UMI; MMI] × GROUP [GLA; HC]) was applied to determine significant interaction effects (p ≤ 0.05) and the effect size partial-eta-squared was calculated. Results: Post-interventional improvement of visual function was absent or minor. Only the main effect of TIME (visual acuity; p = 0.024) and a TIME × INTERVENTION interaction (foveal sensitivity; p = 0.039) were found for standard clinical measures. For S 0 vs. S 3.5 small effects appeared in post-hoc comparisons, but TIME and TIME × SPEED just failed to reach significance for CS (p = 0.059) and VA s (p = 0.052), respectively. No GROUP interactions were observed. Conclusion: While trends were evident in this pilot study, the effect of the 12-week interventions on visual function was non-significant and, especially for TM-walking, largely independent of group and intervention type. In future studies, a greater sample size, with more advanced GLA cases, should be included to probe for significant visual function differences between groups and intervention types.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Djuloun et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: