Literature DB >> 18455935

Results of ocular dominance testing depend on assessment method.

Melissa L Rice1, David A Leske, Christina E Smestad, Jonathan M Holmes.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We developed a near ocular dominance test modeled after the distance hole-in-the-card test and assessed both test-retest reliability of four tests of ocular dominance and agreement between tests.
METHODS: Forty-six subjects aged 18 to 78 years with visual acuity 20/40 or better in each eye were enrolled from a primary care practice. All subjects had normal eye examinations, with the exception of refractive error, and were examined in their habitual correction. Subjects were tested twice each with the distance hole-in-the-card test, new near hole-in-the-card test, near convergence test, and the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group fixation preference test.
RESULTS: There was excellent test-retest reliability for each ocular dominance test. Nevertheless, there was only moderate to slight agreement between each possible pairing of tests.
CONCLUSIONS: Results of ocular dominance tests vary depending on both the testing distance and the specific activity performed as part of the testing procedure.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18455935      PMCID: PMC2679867          DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2008.01.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J AAPOS        ISSN: 1091-8531            Impact factor:   1.220


  12 in total

1.  Sighting dominance, handedness, and visual acuity preference: three mutually exclusive modalities?

Authors:  J S Pointer
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  The amblyopia treatment study visual acuity testing protocol.

Authors:  J M Holmes; R W Beck; M X Repka; D A Leske; R T Kraker; R C Blair; P S Moke; E E Birch; R A Saunders; R W Hertle; G E Quinn; K A Simons; J M Miller
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-09

Review 3.  What does the dominant eye dominate? A brief and somewhat contentious review.

Authors:  Alistair P Mapp; Hiroshi Ono; Raphael Barbeito
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2003-02

4.  Effects of dominant and nondominant eyes in binocular rivalry.

Authors:  Tomoya Handa; Kazuo Mukuno; Hiroshi Uozato; Takahiro Niida; Nobuyuki Shoji; Kimiya Shimizu
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 1.973

5.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Sighting dominance: an explanation based on the processing of visual direction in tests of sighting dominance.

Authors:  R Barbeito
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  The cyclopean eye vs. the sighting-dominant eye as the center of visual direction.

Authors:  H Ono; R Barbeito
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1982-09

8.  Quantitative measurement of ocular dominance using binocular rivalry induced by retinometers.

Authors:  Tomoya Handa; Hiroshi Uozato; Risako Higa; Marie Nitta; Takushi Kawamorita; Hitoshi Ishikawa; Nobuyuki Shoji; Kimiya Shimizu
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 3.351

9.  Disease laterality, eye dominance, and visual handicap in patients with unilateral full thickness macular holes.

Authors:  K Waheed; D A H Laidlaw
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.638

10.  A randomized trial of atropine vs. patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children.

Authors: 
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2002-03
View more
  18 in total

1.  Laterality of amblyopia.

Authors:  Michael Repka; Kurt Simons; Raymond Kraker
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-05-08       Impact factor: 5.258

2.  The role of sensory ocular dominance on through-focus visual performance in monovision presbyopia corrections.

Authors:  Len Zheleznyak; Aixa Alarcon; Kevin C Dieter; Duje Tadin; Geunyoung Yoon
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Eye-hand laterality and right thoracic idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Jean-François Catanzariti; Marc-Alexandre Guyot; Olivier Agnani; Samantha Demaille; Elisabeth Kolanowski; Cécile Donze
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Relative contributions of the two eyes to perceived egocentric visual direction in normal binocular vision.

Authors:  Deepika Sridhar; Harold E Bedell
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  The effect of induced monocular blur on measures of stereoacuity.

Authors:  Naomi V Odell; Sarah R Hatt; David A Leske; Wendy E Adams; Jonathan M Holmes
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  2008-12-13       Impact factor: 1.220

6.  Individual differences in sensory eye dominance reflected in the dynamics of binocular rivalry.

Authors:  Kevin C Dieter; Jocelyn L Sy; Randolph Blake
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2016-10-26       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  In vivo functional localization of the temporal monocular crescent representation in human primary visual cortex.

Authors:  Shahin Nasr; Cristen LaPierre; Christopher E Vaughn; Thomas Witzel; Jason P Stockmann; Jonathan R Polimeni
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  Single neural code for blur in subjects with different interocular optical blur orientation.

Authors:  Aiswaryah Radhakrishnan; Lucie Sawides; Carlos Dorronsoro; Eli Peli; Susana Marcos
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  Extrastriate projections in human optic radiation revealed by fMRI-informed tractography.

Authors:  Ivan Alvarez; D Samuel Schwarzkopf; Chris A Clark
Journal:  Brain Struct Funct       Date:  2014-06-06       Impact factor: 3.270

10.  Developmental changes in face visual scanning in autism spectrum disorder as assessed by data-based analysis.

Authors:  Anouck Amestoy; Etienne Guillaud; Manuel P Bouvard; Jean-René Cazalets
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-07-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.