BACKGROUND: The horizontal binocular visual field can extend to more than 200 degrees, while a monocular field is limited to 160 degrees. Additionally, the nose and other facial structures may block the monocular field further during certain eye movements. The purpose of this study was to compare the monocular against the binocular visual field and determine if head and eye movements can functionally overcome any measured deficit. METHODS: In Experiment 1, visual fields were measured monocularly with a bowl perimeter using 5 fixation positions. Binocular visual fields were calculated by combining the monocular visual field with its mirror image. In Experiment 2, subjects were allowed to make head, eye, and body movements to search for flashing lights 360 degrees around them, spaced every 45 degrees. The numbers of lights identified were compared for the subjects performing monocularly versus binocularly. RESULTS: The size of the overall monocular visual field was found to vary between 48% and 76% of the binocular visual field, depending on eye position. For the flashing light experiment, head and eye movements could not overcome the entire visual-field deficit with monocular viewing. Monocular performance remained 11.4% less than binocular performance. CONCLUSIONS: The visual-field deficit seen with monocular viewing is greatest with nasal fixation, and head and eye movements cannot totally compensate for this deficit when viewing time is limited. Vision standards that require full visual fields in each eye are more appropriate for occupations in which peripheral visual targets must be identified and visual search time is limited.
BACKGROUND: The horizontal binocular visual field can extend to more than 200 degrees, while a monocular field is limited to 160 degrees. Additionally, the nose and other facial structures may block the monocular field further during certain eye movements. The purpose of this study was to compare the monocular against the binocular visual field and determine if head and eye movements can functionally overcome any measured deficit. METHODS: In Experiment 1, visual fields were measured monocularly with a bowl perimeter using 5 fixation positions. Binocular visual fields were calculated by combining the monocular visual field with its mirror image. In Experiment 2, subjects were allowed to make head, eye, and body movements to search for flashing lights 360 degrees around them, spaced every 45 degrees. The numbers of lights identified were compared for the subjects performing monocularly versus binocularly. RESULTS: The size of the overall monocular visual field was found to vary between 48% and 76% of the binocular visual field, depending on eye position. For the flashing light experiment, head and eye movements could not overcome the entire visual-field deficit with monocular viewing. Monocular performance remained 11.4% less than binocular performance. CONCLUSIONS: The visual-field deficit seen with monocular viewing is greatest with nasal fixation, and head and eye movements cannot totally compensate for this deficit when viewing time is limited. Vision standards that require full visual fields in each eye are more appropriate for occupations in which peripheral visual targets must be identified and visual search time is limited.
Authors: Takaaki Kondo; Walter T Tillman; Terry L Schwartz; John V Linberg; J Vernon Odom Journal: Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.746