본 연구에서는 시기능훈련 전, 후의 Big5 성격 즉 외향성, 우호성, 성실성, 신경증, 개방성의 차이를 알아보고 Big5 성격에 따른 시기능훈련의 효과를 알아보고자 하였다.
교정시력 1.0 이상의 20대 성인 남녀 42명을 대상으로 시기능훈련 전, 후의 양안시검사와 Big5 성격검사(25문항 5점 척도)를 실시하고, 양안시이상 분류에 따라 개인별 시기능훈련 도구를 선정하여 시기능훈련을 실시하였다.
시기능훈련 전, 후 양안시검사 측정값과 Big5 성격의 상관성 결과, 시기능훈련 전 외향성은 음성상대조절력(r=-0.310, p<0.05)과 신경증은 그래디언트 AC/A비(r=0.402, p<0.01), 양성상대조절력(r=0.328, p<0.05), 개방성은 음성상대조절력(r=-0.338, p<0.05)과 유의한 관련성을 보였다. 시기능훈련 후 외향성은 우안조절력(r=0.313, p<0.05), 양성상대조절력(r=0.360, p<0.05) 및 양안조절용이성(r=-0.408, p<0.01), 성실성은 원거리 음성융합버전스 회복점(r=-0.310, p<0.05)과 유의한 관련성을 보였다.
시기능훈련 시 도구 별 사용 여부에 따른 Big5 성격의 차이는 하트챠트를 사용한 집단에서 Big5 성격 중 신경증에서 유의한 차이가 있었으며(t=-2.234, p=0.031), 하트챠트를 사용하지 않은 군보다 하트챠트를 사용한 군에서 신경증 점수가 높게 나타났다.
Morgan’s 기준에 의한 시기능훈련 전, 후의 양안시검사 측정값의 정상군과 비정상군의 Big5 성격 별 비교 분석의 결과, 시기능훈련 전 외향성은 양안시검사 항목과 유의한 차이가 없었으나, 시기능훈련 후 양안조절용이성에서 외향성 점수가 정상군(19.00±3.28점)보다 비정상군(16.47±2.76점)에서 유의하게 낮았다(p=0.013). 우호성은 시기능훈련 전 조절랙에서 정상군(17.11±2.72점)보다 비정상군(12.75±3.20점)이 유의하게 낮았고(p=0.005), 시기능훈련 후 근거리사위도에서 정상군(18.94±3.29점)보다 비정상군(16.75±2.78점)이 유의하게 낮았다(p=0.025). 신경증은 시기능훈련 전 음성상대조절력에서 정상군(10.78±3.75점)보다 비정상군(13.73±4.25점)이 유의하게 높았고(p=0.025), 시기능훈련 후 원거리 양성융합버전스 회복점에서 정상군(11.27±3.86점)보다 비정상군(15.43±4.45점)이 유의하게 높았으며(p=0.006), 주시시차에서 정상군(13.44±5.11점)보다 비정상군(9.70±3.12점)에서 유의하게 낮았다(p=0.035). 개방성은 시기능훈련 전 융합용이성에서 정상군(19.86±2.76점)보다 비정상군(17.90±2.75점)이 유의하게 낮았다(p=0.027).
이와 같이 양안시기능의 정상군과 비정상군에서 Big5성격 점수의 높고 낮음의 유의한 차이를 확인 할 수 있었다. 우호성과 외향성에서 양안시검사 여러 항목과 유의한 점수 차이를 확인하였고, 시기능훈련 후 우호성이 더 높아지는 것을 확인하였다. 개방성에서는 시기능훈련 전 보다 시기능훈련 후에 유의미한 차이가 거의 나타나지 않았다.
이상으로부터 시기능훈련 전, 후의 양안시검사 항목과 Big5 성격의 관련성을 일부 확인하였다. 추가적인 연구를 통해 Big5 각각의 성격의 차이가 시기능훈련의 향상도와 개인의 성격에 상호 보완적인 관계로 작용하는 점이 밝혀진다면 개인의 성격 특성을 고려한 시기능훈련 방법은 더 좋은 결과에 대한 예측변인으로 영향을 미쳐 보다 체계적이고 효율적인 방법으로 시기능훈련의 향상도에 더 나은 결과가 제공될 것으로 기대된다.

This study evaluated the effect of vision training according to Big5 personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness) by examining the difference of each personality traits before and after the vision training.
Forty-two subjects consisted of male and female adults in their twenties, with corrected vision above 1.0, volunteered for binocular vision test and Big5 personality test (25-questionnaire with 5-point scale) before and after the vision training, where vision training was followed after selecting personalized vision training tool based on the classification of binocular abnormality of individuals.
As an analyzed result of correlation between the measurements variation and Big5 personality traits after vision training, there were statistically significant relationships between vision training and Big5 personality traits: Before vision training, extraversion showed statistically significant relationship with negative relative accommodation(NRA) (r=-0.310, p<0.05), whereas neuroticism presented statistically significant relationship with gradient AC/A (r=0.402, p<0.01) and positive relative accommodation (PRA) (r=0.328, p<0.05). On the other hand, openness had a statistically significant relationship with negative relative accommodation (NRA) (r=-0.338, p<0.05); after the vision training, extraversion presented as significantly related with AMP(push-up)OD (r=0.313, p<0.05), positive relative accommodation (PRA) (r=0.360, p<0.05), and binocular accommodative facility (r=-0.408, p<0.01), while conscientiousness had statistically significant relationship with BI vergence recovery(Far) (r=-0.310, p<0.05). Among Big5 personality traits, only neuroticism presented a significant difference with a use of hate chart (t=-2.234, p=0.031). The score for neuroticism was higher in the group using the hate chart than the group without using hate chart.
Based on Morgan''s classification, comparison of Big5 personality traits variables between normal and abnormal groups differentiated by the measured value of binocular test before and after the vision training was analyzed. As a result of analysis, there was no statistically significant difference between extraversion and binocular test before vision training; however, score for extraversion in binocular accommodative facility was significantly lower in abnormal group (16.47±2.76),(p=0.013) than in normal group (19.00±3.28) after the vision training. Meanwhile, score for agreeableness in fused cross cylinder, before vision training, was lower in
abnormal group (12.75±3.20) than in normal group(17.11±2.72)(p=0.005), after the vision training, on the other hand, the score for agreeableness in lateral phoria(Near) was significantly lower in abnormal group (16.75±2.78)) than in normal group (18.94±3.29),(p=0.025). Before vision training, score for neuroticism in negative relative accommodation (NRA) was significantly higher in abnormal group (13.73±4.25) than in normal group (10.78±3.75),(p=0.025). After the vision training, however, the score for neuroticism in BO vergence recovery(Far) was significantly higher in abnormal group (13.73±4.25) than in normal group (11.27±3.86),(p=0.025), while abnormal group was showing significantly lower score (9.70±3.12) for neuroticism in fixation disparity, compared to the score of the normal group (13.44±5.11),(p=0.035). Before the vision training, score for openness in fusional facility was significantly lower in abnormal group (17.90±2.75) than in normal group (19.86±2.76),(p=0.027). Likewise, compared to the normal group, abnormal group consisted of subjects presented with abnormal binocular test, showed more significant difference in several items of binocular test according to the Big5 personality test score, especially in agreeableness and extraversion. Agreeableness was generally increased after the vision training although no significant difference was observed in openness before and after the vision training.
From the above, the relationship between binocular test items, before and after the vision training and Big5 personality traits were partly confirmed, although further research is recommended for each personality differences to establish a complementary role in relation to improve vision training and the personality of individuals. Therefore, vision training considering individual personality traits may provide positive influence on predictive variables that will improve vision training in a more systematic and efficient way.