Literature DB >> 30292725

A comparison of tests for quantifying sensory eye dominance.

Manuela Bossi1, Lisa M Hamm2, Annegret Dahlmann-Noor3, Steven C Dakin4.   

Abstract

Clinicians rely heavily on stereoacuity to measure binocular visual function, but stereo-vision represents only one aspect of binocularity. Lab-based tests of sensory eye dominance (SED) are commonplace, but have not been translated to wider clinical practice. Here we compare several methods of quantifying SED in a format suitable for clinical use. We tested 30 participants with ostensibly normal vision on eight tests. Seven tests (#1-7) were designed to quantify SED in the form of an interocular balance-point (BP). In tests #1-6, we estimated a contrast-BP, the interocular difference in contrast required for observers to be equally likely to base their judgement on either eye, whereas in test #7 we measured binocular rivalry (interocular ratio of sensory dominance duration). We compare test-retest reliability (intra-observer consistency) and test-validity (inter-observer discriminatory power) and compare BP to stereoacuity (test #8). The test that best preserved inter-observer differences in contrast balance while maintaining good test-retest reliability was a polarity judgement using superimposed opposite-contrast polarity same-identity optotypes. A reliable and valid measure of SED can be obtained rapidly (20 trials) using a simple contrast-polarity judgement. Tests that use polarity-rivalrous stimuli elicit more reliable judgments than those that do not. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Although sensory eye dominance is central to understanding normal and disordered binocular vision, there is currently no consensus as to the best way to measure it. Here we compare several candidate measures of sensory eye dominance and conclude that a reliable measure of SED can be achieved rapidly using a judgement of stimulus contrast-polarity.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Amblyopia; Binocular vision; Stereoacuity

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30292725     DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2018.09.006

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


  5 in total

1.  Phase 2a randomised controlled feasibility trial of a new 'balanced binocular viewing' treatment for unilateral amblyopia in children age 3-8 years: trial protocol.

Authors:  Annegret Hella Dahlmann-Noor; John A Greenwood; Andrew Skilton; Daniel Baker; Siobhan Ludden; Amanda Davis; Hakim-Moulay Dehbi; Steven C Dakin
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 3.006

2.  Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently.

Authors:  Miguel A García-Pérez; Eli Peli
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2019-04-29

3.  The Modulation of Laser Refractive Surgery on Sensory Eye Dominance of Anisometropia.

Authors:  Hongting Liu; Qi Chen; Fangfang Lan; Yan Luo; Enwei Lin; Wuqiang Luo; Ming Kong; Jiangxia Wang; Fengju Zhang
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-03-27       Impact factor: 1.909

4.  Transcranial random noise stimulation and exercise do not modulate ocular dominance plasticity in adults with normal vision.

Authors:  Xiaoxin Chen; Kennedy Hall; William R Bobier; Benjamin Thompson; Arijit Chakraborty
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2022-09-02       Impact factor: 2.004

5.  Crossed versus conventional pseudophakic monovision for high myopic eyes: a prospective, randomized pilot study.

Authors:  Yan Xun; Wenjuan Wan; Lu Jiang; Ke Hu
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 2.209

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.