PURPOSE: This study had three main goals: to assess the degree of suppression in patients with strabismic, anisometropic, and mixed amblyopia; to establish the relationship between suppression and the degree of amblyopia; and to compare the degree of suppression across the clinical subgroups within the sample. METHODS: Using both standard measures of suppression (Bagolini lenses and neutral density [ND] filters, Worth 4-Dot test) and a new approach involving the measurement of dichoptic motion thresholds under conditions of variable interocular contrast, the degree of suppression in 43 amblyopic patients with strabismus, anisometropia, or a combination of both was quantified. RESULTS: There was good agreement between the quantitative measures of suppression made with the new dichoptic motion threshold technique and measurements made with standard clinical techniques (Bagolini lenses and ND filters, Worth 4-Dot test). The degree of suppression was found to correlate directly with the degree of amblyopia within our clinical sample, whereby stronger suppression was associated with a greater difference in interocular acuity and poorer stereoacuity. Suppression was not related to the type or angle of strabismus when this was present or the previous treatment history. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that suppression may have a primary role in the amblyopia syndrome and therefore have implications for the treatment of amblyopia.
PURPOSE: This study had three main goals: to assess the degree of suppression in patients with strabismic, anisometropic, and mixed amblyopia; to establish the relationship between suppression and the degree of amblyopia; and to compare the degree of suppression across the clinical subgroups within the sample. METHODS: Using both standard measures of suppression (Bagolini lenses and neutral density [ND] filters, Worth 4-Dot test) and a new approach involving the measurement of dichoptic motion thresholds under conditions of variable interocular contrast, the degree of suppression in 43 amblyopic patients with strabismus, anisometropia, or a combination of both was quantified. RESULTS: There was good agreement between the quantitative measures of suppression made with the new dichoptic motion threshold technique and measurements made with standard clinical techniques (Bagolini lenses and ND filters, Worth 4-Dot test). The degree of suppression was found to correlate directly with the degree of amblyopia within our clinical sample, whereby stronger suppression was associated with a greater difference in interocular acuity and poorer stereoacuity. Suppression was not related to the type or angle of strabismus when this was present or the previous treatment history. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that suppression may have a primary role in the amblyopia syndrome and therefore have implications for the treatment of amblyopia.
Authors: Carl R Stoelzel; Joseph M Huff; Yulia Bereshpolova; Jun Zhuang; Xiaojuan Hei; Jose-Manuel Alonso; Harvey A Swadlow Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2015-06-24 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Christopher Shooner; Luke E Hallum; Romesh D Kumbhani; Virginia García-Marín; Jenna G Kelly; Najib J Majaj; J Anthony Movshon; Lynne Kiorpes Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Daniel P Spiegel; Jinrong Li; Robert F Hess; Winston D Byblow; Daming Deng; Minbin Yu; Benjamin Thompson Journal: Neurotherapeutics Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 7.620
Authors: Luke E Hallum; Christopher Shooner; Romesh D Kumbhani; Jenna G Kelly; Virginia García-Marín; Najib J Majaj; J Anthony Movshon; Lynne Kiorpes Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Krista R Kelly; Christina S Cheng-Patel; Reed M Jost; Yi-Zhong Wang; Eileen E Birch Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2018-07-10 Impact factor: 3.467