BACKGROUND: Ocular prevalence is defined as an unequal weighting of the eyes in the directional perception of stereo objects. Opinions differ as to the cause and relevance of ocular prevalence. Hans-Joachim Haase suggested that ocular prevalence is due to fixation disparity, brought about by incomplete compensation of heterophoria. He further suggested that prismatic spectacles determined by his "measuring and correcting methodology" (MKH) could restore bicentral fixation and thus establish a perceptual balance between both eyes. METHODS: We examined 10 non-strabismic subjects with a visual acuity of > or = 1.0 in both eyes. It turned out that all 10 had a "fixation disparity type II", characterised according to Haase by a "disparate retinal correspondence". All subjects underwent the automatic Freiburg Ocular Prevalence Test, without and with MKH prisms. In addition we examined ocular prevalence under forced vergence and compared ocular prevalence with stereoacuity. RESULTS: Spontaneous ocular prevalence ranged between 1 and 69 %. Averaged over all 10 subjects, ocular prevalence without and with the MKH prisms were not significantly different. Statistical evaluation of single subjects revealed only in one of the 10 a significant difference (Bonferroni-corrected p = 0.001). In the subgroup of 5 subjects who underwent forced vergence, ocular prevalence remained unaltered between 0 and 18 Delta base out. The stereoscopic threshold of all 10 subjects ranged between 1.5 and 14.5 arcsec. There was no correlation between ocular prevalence and stereoscopic threshold (r = - 0.2, p = 0.5). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that ocular prevalence is largely independent of phoria correction and vergence stress. The excellent stereoacuity of all subjects suggests that ocular prevalence is abandoned for the sake of optimal resolution when very small differences in depth have to be judged.
BACKGROUND: Ocular prevalence is defined as an unequal weighting of the eyes in the directional perception of stereo objects. Opinions differ as to the cause and relevance of ocular prevalence. Hans-Joachim Haase suggested that ocular prevalence is due to fixation disparity, brought about by incomplete compensation of heterophoria. He further suggested that prismatic spectacles determined by his "measuring and correcting methodology" (MKH) could restore bicentral fixation and thus establish a perceptual balance between both eyes. METHODS: We examined 10 non-strabismic subjects with a visual acuity of > or = 1.0 in both eyes. It turned out that all 10 had a "fixation disparity type II", characterised according to Haase by a "disparate retinal correspondence". All subjects underwent the automatic Freiburg Ocular Prevalence Test, without and with MKH prisms. In addition we examined ocular prevalence under forced vergence and compared ocular prevalence with stereoacuity. RESULTS: Spontaneous ocular prevalence ranged between 1 and 69 %. Averaged over all 10 subjects, ocular prevalence without and with the MKH prisms were not significantly different. Statistical evaluation of single subjects revealed only in one of the 10 a significant difference (Bonferroni-corrected p = 0.001). In the subgroup of 5 subjects who underwent forced vergence, ocular prevalence remained unaltered between 0 and 18 Delta base out. The stereoscopic threshold of all 10 subjects ranged between 1.5 and 14.5 arcsec. There was no correlation between ocular prevalence and stereoscopic threshold (r = - 0.2, p = 0.5). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that ocular prevalence is largely independent of phoria correction and vergence stress. The excellent stereoacuity of all subjects suggests that ocular prevalence is abandoned for the sake of optimal resolution when very small differences in depth have to be judged.