Literature DB >> 25701741

Discriminating anisometropic amblyopia from myopia based on interocular inhibition.

Wuli Jia1, Jiawei Zhou2, Zhong-Lin Lu3, Luis A Lesmes4, Chang-Bing Huang5.   

Abstract

Amblyopia screening during childhood is critical for early detection and successful treatment. In the current study, we develop and evaluate a screening method that exploits the imbalanced interocular inhibition between amblyopic and fellow eyes. In nineteen subjects with anisometropic amblyopia and twenty-two age-matched subjects with myopia, we measured the area under the contrast sensitivity functions (AUCSFs) in eight monocular conditions defined by the tested eye (left, right), patching of the untested eye (translucent, opaque), and refractive status (corrected, uncorrected). For each tested eye, we defined the inhibition index as the ratio between the AUCSF values obtained in the translucent and opaque patching conditions of the untested eye. To evaluate the screening potential of the inhibition index, we compared results from patients with amblyopia and myopia. With and without optical correction, the index was significantly lower in the amblyopic eye than in the fellow eye of the amblyopic subjects and both eyes of the myopic subjects. No significant difference was found among the two eyes of the myopic subjects and the fellow eyes of the amblyopic subjects. With the inhibition index as the predictor, a logistic regression model successfully discriminated amblyopic eyes from myopic eyes with 100% accuracy in the uncorrected condition. In the corrected condition, with the inhibition index and interocular visual acuity difference as predictors, amblyopic eyes were likewise discriminated from myopic eyes with 100% accuracy. This pattern of CSF changes, caused by the different patching modes of the untested eye, provides a potential CSF signature to discriminate anisometropic amblyopia from myopia.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AUCSF; Amblyopia screening; Interocular difference; Interocular inhibition

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25701741      PMCID: PMC4801038          DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2015.02.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  56 in total

1.  A standard model for foveal detection of spatial contrast.

Authors:  Andrew B Watson; Albert J Ahumada
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2005-10-26       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  Binocular integration of contrast information in amblyopia.

Authors:  R A Harrad; R F Hess
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  QUEST: a Bayesian adaptive psychometric method.

Authors:  A B Watson; D G Pelli
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1983-02

4.  Differences in vernier discrimination for grating between strabismic and anisometropic amblyopes.

Authors:  D M Levi; S Klein
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1982-09       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Microiontophoretic bicuculline restores binocular responses to visual cortical neurons in strabismic cats.

Authors:  G D Mower; W G Christen; J L Burchfiel; F H Duffy
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1984-08-20       Impact factor: 3.252

6.  Binocular interaction in the peripheral visual field of humans with strabismic and anisometropic amblyopia.

Authors:  R Sireteanu; M Fronius; W Singer
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Contrast sensitivity, visual acuity and the discrimination of Snellen letters in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  D Regan; J Raymond; A P Ginsburg; T J Murray
Journal:  Brain       Date:  1981-06       Impact factor: 13.501

8.  Preschool vision screening for amblyopia and strabismus. Programs, methods, guidelines, 1983.

Authors:  M I Ehrlich; R D Reinecke; K Simons
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  1983 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.048

9.  Refraction as a basis for screening children for squint and amblyopia.

Authors:  R M Ingram
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1977-01       Impact factor: 4.638

10.  Comparison of preschool vision screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in the Vision In Preschoolers Study.

Authors:  Paulette Schmidt; Maureen Maguire; Velma Dobson; Graham Quinn; Elise Ciner; Lynn Cyert; Marjean Taylor Kulp; Bruce Moore; Deborah Orel-Bixler; Maryann Redford; Gui-shuang Ying
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 12.079

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  [Secondary diseases in high myopia].

Authors:  F Ziemssen; W Lagrèze; B Voykov
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  Active Learning of Contrast Sensitivity to Assess Visual Function in Macula-off Retinal Detachment.

Authors:  Merina Thomas; Rebecca F Silverman; Filippos Vingopoulos; Megan Kasetty; Gina Yu; Esther L Kim; Amro A Omari; Katherine A Joltikov; Eun Y Choi; Leo A Kim; David N Zacks; John B Miller
Journal:  J Vitreoretin Dis       Date:  2020-11-05

3.  A complete investigation of monocular and binocular functions in clinically treated amblyopia.

Authors:  Wuxiao Zhao; Wu-Li Jia; Ge Chen; Yan Luo; Borong Lin; Qing He; Zhong-Lin Lu; Min Li; Chang-Bing Huang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-09-06       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Measuring the Contrast Sensitivity Function Using the qCSF Method With 10 Digits.

Authors:  Haiyan Zheng; Chenxiao Wang; Rong Cui; Xianghang He; Menglu Shen; Luis Andres Lesmes; Zhong-Lin Lu; Jia Qu; Fang Hou
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 3.283

5.  Hierarchical Bayesian modeling of contrast sensitivity functions in a within-subject design.

Authors:  Yukai Zhao; Luis Andres Lesmes; Fang Hou; Zhong-Lin Lu
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  Measuring the impact of suppression on visual acuity in children with amblyopia using a dichoptic visual acuity chart.

Authors:  Bixia Zhu; Meng Liao; Longqian Liu
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 5.152

Review 7.  Advancing Clinical Trials for Inherited Retinal Diseases: Recommendations from the Second Monaciano Symposium.

Authors:  Debra A Thompson; Alessandro Iannaccone; Robin R Ali; Vadim Y Arshavsky; Isabelle Audo; James W B Bainbridge; Cagri G Besirli; David G Birch; Kari E Branham; Artur V Cideciyan; Steven P Daiger; Deniz Dalkara; Jacque L Duncan; Abigail T Fahim; John G Flannery; Roberto Gattegna; John R Heckenlively; Elise Heon; K Thiran Jayasundera; Naheed W Khan; Henry Klassen; Bart P Leroy; Robert S Molday; David C Musch; Mark E Pennesi; Simon M Petersen-Jones; Eric A Pierce; Rajesh C Rao; Thomas A Reh; Jose A Sahel; Dror Sharon; Paul A Sieving; Enrica Strettoi; Paul Yang; David N Zacks
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 3.283

8.  Dichoptic Spatial Contrast Sensitivity Reflects Binocular Balance in Normal and Stereoanomalous Subjects.

Authors:  Mirella Telles Salgueiro Barboni; Otto Alexander Maneschg; János Németh; Zoltán Zsolt Nagy; Zoltán Vidnyánszky; Éva M Bankó
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 4.799

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.