BACKGROUND: Prevalence of dyslexia is 5%-10% of the population. Opinions differ on how binocular function affects dyslexia. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the binocular function in dyslexic children and compare it with a group of age-matched control children. METHODS: The study was performed at Ängkärrskolan and at Kungsholmen elementary schools in Stockholm, Sweden. Sixty-three children with dyslexia and 60 control children between fourth and ninth grade participated. Monocular and binocular visual acuity, refractive error, best corrected visual acuity at distance and near, near point of convergence, amplitude of accommodation, stereopsis, phorias, and fusional reserves were evaluated in all of the children. RESULTS: The results show that there was no difference in the visual functions tested except for the amplitude of accommodation, which was found to be reduced both monocularly and binocularly in the dyslexic children. CONCLUSION: This study showed that only the amplitude of accommodation seems to differ in children with dyslexia as compared with the control children; however, the ability to accommodate was still good and is unlikely to hamper reading and learning ability. The results therefore support that the recent findings of binocular deficits in dyslexic children are a result of the phonological deficit of dyslexia and not an underlying cause of dyslexia.
BACKGROUND: Prevalence of dyslexia is 5%-10% of the population. Opinions differ on how binocular function affects dyslexia. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the binocular function in dyslexic children and compare it with a group of age-matched control children. METHODS: The study was performed at Ängkärrskolan and at Kungsholmen elementary schools in Stockholm, Sweden. Sixty-three children with dyslexia and 60 control children between fourth and ninth grade participated. Monocular and binocular visual acuity, refractive error, best corrected visual acuity at distance and near, near point of convergence, amplitude of accommodation, stereopsis, phorias, and fusional reserves were evaluated in all of the children. RESULTS: The results show that there was no difference in the visual functions tested except for the amplitude of accommodation, which was found to be reduced both monocularly and binocularly in the dyslexic children. CONCLUSION: This study showed that only the amplitude of accommodation seems to differ in children with dyslexia as compared with the control children; however, the ability to accommodate was still good and is unlikely to hamper reading and learning ability. The results therefore support that the recent findings of binocular deficits in dyslexicchildren are a result of the phonological deficit of dyslexia and not an underlying cause of dyslexia.