scholarly journals A binocular test of sensory eye dominance based on the Pulfrich effect

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Megna ◽  
Giampaolo Lucarini ◽  
Alessandro Fossetti
Keyword(s):  
Processing Time ◽  
Ocular Dominance ◽  
Eye Dominance ◽  
Motion Stimulus ◽  
Continuous Scale ◽  
Dominant Eye ◽  
Illusory Perception ◽  
Pulfrich Effect ◽  
Test Outcomes ◽  
Sensory Eye Dominance

Many studies have shown inconsistent results among traditional measures of sensory ocular dominance (SED), seriously questioning the very concept of SED as a unitary aspect of the visual system (e.g., Laby & Kirschen, 2011; Mapp et al., 2003; Walls, 1951).The test outcomes may also change even if the same measure is repeated under different conditions, for example by varying the distance and eccentricity of the target (e.g., Rice et al., 2008; Kahn & Crawford, 2001).On the other hand, some authors suggest that such inconsistencies may result from uncontrolled variables. A candidate to produce confusing variables is the frequent format of these tests, often dichotomous and introspective.In this paper, we propose a possibility of measuring SED on a continuous scale and in a comparative way using a stimulus that induces a Pulfrich effect. Here a dichoptic motion stimulus, borrowed from a previous study (Reynaud & Hess, 2017), was used, which produced different degrees of 3D illusory perception strength through the variation of retinal disparity. We observed that the responses of the subjects varied according to their classical SED test outcomes and we estimated the differences in terms of the time delay of the information coming from the two eyes. In our sample, it appears that information from the dominant eye was processed 8.2±5.8 ms faster than that of the fellow eye. People with a left dominant eye showed more marked differences in processing time (6.8±2.0 ms) than people with a right dominant eye (1.8±0.9 ms). Eyes without a clear dominance did not show significant differences in processing time (1.2±1.7 ms). These results are consistent with the previous literature and could lead to the development of a new continuous-scaled SED test.

Imbalanced Sensory Eye Dominance of Surgically Aligned Late-onset Acute Acquired Concomitant Esotropes with normal stereopsis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhimo Yao ◽  
Huanyun Yu ◽  
Junxiao Zhang ◽  
Bo Chen ◽  
Xinping Yu
Keyword(s):  
Late Onset ◽  
Ocular Dominance ◽  
Contrast Ratio ◽  
Strabismus Surgery ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Balance Point ◽  
Eye Dominance ◽  
Phase Combination ◽  
Sensory Eye Dominance ◽  
Normal Controls

Abstract Background: Adults with late-onset acute acquired concomitant esotropia (AACE) have chance to develop normal binocular functions including a balanced ocular dominance before the onset of esotropia. For most patients, strabismus surgery re-establishing the ocular alignment indeed effectively restore stereopsis and visual acuity to the normal level. However, it is unclear whether they have already acquired balanced two eyes.Methods: 11 surgically aligned patients with AACE (24.3 ± 1.5 years; mean ± SE) and 14 adults with normal vision (26.1±1.2 years) participated in our experiments. All patients had normal binocularity and stereopsis. Using binocular phase combination paradigm, sensory eye dominance was quantified as the interocular contrast ratio, termed balance point, at which the contribution of each eye to the perception of cyclopean grating were equal.Results: Normal controls had a mean balance point value close to unity (0.95±0.01), while AACE group exhibited evident binocular imbalance (0.76±0.05), which was significantly different from control group (t (10.45) = -3.485, p = 0.006) . The balance point value didn’t depend on the interval from AACE onset to strabismus surgery (r = -0.357, p = 0.281) or the interval from the surgery to examination of sensory eye dominance (r = -0.105, p = 0.759).Conclusions: Although strabismus surgery effectively straightened AACE patients’ ocular alignment and even conferred them normal stereopsis, late-onset AACE patients’ two eyes were still not balanced. These results indicated that binocular imbalance might be a risk factor for adult AACE.

scholarly journals The Modulation of Laser Refractive Surgery on Sensory Eye Dominance of Anisometropia

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Hongting Liu ◽  
Qi Chen ◽  
Fangfang Lan ◽  
Yan Luo ◽  
Enwei Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Refractive Surgery ◽  
Ocular Dominance ◽  
Eye Dominance ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Laser Refractive Surgery ◽  
Sensory Eye Dominance ◽  
Stereo Acuity ◽  
Sensory Dominance

Purpose. To evaluate the effect of laser refractive surgery on sensory eye dominance of anisometropia. Methods. A total of 156 subjects with nonanisometropic myopia and 70 subjects with anisometropic myopia were enrolled in the first part of the study. The dichoptic motion coherence threshold technique was applied to collect the normal dataset and distribution of sensory eye dominance. The second part of the study included 40 subjects with nonanisometropic myopia and 40 subjects with anisometropic myopia who received the femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (Fs-LASIK). A comprehensive ophthalmologic evaluation was performed with particular attention to sensory eye dominance preoperatively and one-week and one-month postoperatively. The ocular dominance index (ODI) was applied to evaluate the subject’s overall degree of sensory ocular dominance. Visual acuity, sighting eye dominance, and stereo acuity were also accessed. Results. In experiment one, the mean ODI in the nonanisometropic group and the anisometropic group was 1.48 ± 0.63 and 1.95 ± 1.07, respectively. The ODI values of the anisometropic group were significantly higher than those of the nonanisometropic group (Mann–Whitney U test, P<0.001). The demographics information and the distribution of ODI values in both groups are summarized in tables and figures. In experiment two, all LASIK procedures were uneventful and no postoperative complications were observed during the postoperative follow-up. Preoperatively, the ODI values of the anisometropic LASIK group were significantly higher than those of the nonanisometropic LASIK group, which was consistent with the results of part 1. However, one week after operation, the mean ODI values of the anisometropic LASIK group had significantly decreased from 1.89 ± 1.09 to 1.39 ± 0.44. And, the mean ODI values slightly increased to 1.65 ± 0.61 one-month postoperatively. In the nonanisometropic LASIK group, there were no statistically significant differences of ODI changes among preoperative, post-one-week and post-one-month visits. The demographics information and the changes of ODI of both LASIK groups are summarized in tables and figures. Conclusion. Stronger sensory eye dominance is seen in the subjects with anisometropic myopia compared to subjects with nonanisometropic myopia. The strong sensory dominance of anisometropia becomes more balanced at one week of postoperation but returns to the preoperative level after one month. Laser refractive surgery had a short-term modulation of sensory eye dominance.

scholarly journals Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently

i-Perception ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 204166951984139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel A. García-Pérez ◽  
Eli Peli
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Motion Perception ◽  
Ocular Dominance ◽  
The Other ◽  
Threshold Test ◽  
Eye Dominance ◽  
Dominant Eye ◽  
Psychophysical Tests ◽  
Sensory Tests

Classical sighting or sensory tests are used in clinical practice to identify the dominant eye. Several psychophysical tests were recently proposed to quantify the magnitude of dominance but whether their results agree was never investigated. We addressed this question for the two most common psychophysical tests: The perceived-phase test, which measures the cyclopean appearance of dichoptically presented sinusoids of different phase, and the coherence-threshold test, which measures interocular differences in motion perception when signal and noise stimuli are presented dichoptically. We also checked for agreement with three classical tests (Worth 4-dot, Randot suppression, and Bagolini lenses). Psychophysical tests were administered in their conventional form and also using more dependable psychophysical methods. The results showed weak correlations between psychophysical measures of strength of dominance with inconsistent identification of the dominant eye across tests: Agreement on left-eye dominance, right-eye dominance, or nondominance by both tests occurred only for 11 of 40 observers (27.5%); the remaining 29 observers were classified differently by each test, including 14 cases (35%) of opposite classification (left-eye dominance by one test and right-eye dominance by the other). Classical tests also yielded conflicting results that did not agree well with classification based on psychophysical tests. The results are discussed in the context of determination of ocular dominance for clinical decisions.

scholarly journals The Dominant Eye: Dominant for Parvo- But Not for Magno-Biased Stimuli?

Vision ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Brian K. Foutch ◽  
Carl J. Bassi
Keyword(s):  
Visual Function ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Ocular Dominance ◽  
The Other ◽  
Visual Direction ◽  
Rank Tests ◽  
Eye Dominance ◽  
Dominant Eye ◽  
Contrast Thresholds ◽  
Parallel Visual Pathways

Eye dominance is often defined as a preference for the visual input of one eye to the other. Implicit in this definition is the dominant eye has better visual function. Several studies have investigated the effect of visual direction or defocus on ocular dominance, but there is less evidence connecting ocular dominance and monocular visual thresholds. We used the classic “hole in card” method to determine the dominant eye for 28 adult observers (11 males and 17 females). We then compared contrast thresholds between the dominant and non-dominant eyes using grating stimuli biased to be processed more strongly either by the magnocellular (MC) or parvocellular (PC) pathway. Using non-parametric mean rank tests, the dominant eye was more sensitive overall than the non-dominant eye to both stimuli (z = −2.54, p = 0.01). The dominant eye was also more sensitive to the PC-biased stimulus (z = −2.22, p = 0.03) but not the MC-biased stimulus (z = −1.16, p = 0.25). We discuss the clinical relevance of these results as well as the implications for parallel visual pathways.

scholarly journals A comparison of tests for quantifying sensory eye dominance

2018 ◽  
Vol 153 ◽  
pp. 60-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuela Bossi ◽  
Lisa M. Hamm ◽  
Annegret Dahlmann-Noor ◽  
Steven C. Dakin
Keyword(s):  
Eye Dominance ◽  
Comparison Of Tests ◽  
Sensory Eye Dominance

scholarly journals Sensory eye dominance varies within the visual field

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. 268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Dieter ◽  
Randolph Blake
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Eye Dominance ◽  
Sensory Eye Dominance

scholarly journals Sensory eye dominance is retinal location specific and affects stereopsis

2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 1089-1089 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Xu ◽  
Z. J. He ◽  
T. L. Ooi
Keyword(s):  
Retinal Location ◽  
Eye Dominance ◽  
Sensory Eye Dominance

Ocular Dominance Effects on the Application of Monocular, Occluding Head-Mounted Displays

1997 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 1323-1327 ◽  
Author(s):  
David E. Kancler ◽  
Laurie L. Quill
Keyword(s):  
Air Force ◽  
Target Location ◽  
Ocular Dominance ◽  
Environmental Information ◽  
Head Mounted Display ◽  
Head Mounted Displays ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Dominant Eye ◽  
Performance Times ◽  
Order Of Presentation

This study investigates the effects of ocular dominance when maintenance procedures are presented on a monocular, occluding head-mounted display (HMD). While previous research has not revealed significant effects associated with ocular dominance and the use of a monocular, occluding HMD, most of this research has occurred in the cockpit environment. By nature, this setting involves continually changing (or dynamic) environmental information, such as target location or altitude. By contrast, the aircraft maintenance environment is static; the technician is not required to process dynamic environmental information. As the Air Force studies the feasibility of presenting maintenance procedures on HMDs, research efforts must thoroughly address questions pertaining to the use of these devices, such as potential effects of ocular dominance. The current study addresses the effect of ocular dominance on performance times, subjective workload ratings, self reports, and preference rankings. Consistent with previous research, ocular dominance did not have a significant effect on any of the dependent measures. However, order of presentation (dominant eye before non-dominant eye vs. dominant eye after non-dominant eye) did provide some differences in performance times and workload scores. Explanations for these differences are discussed.

Suprathreshold Motion Sensitivity and Ocular Dominance

Perception ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 26 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 72-72
Author(s):  
B E Arnold-Schultz-Gahmen ◽  
W H Ehrenstein ◽  
L Schlykowa
Keyword(s):  
Binocular Vision ◽  
Visual Motion ◽  
Ocular Dominance ◽  
Motion Sensitivity ◽  
Eye Dominance ◽  
Direction Of Movement ◽  
Moving Stimulus ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Time Required ◽  
Condition B

Sensitivity to visual motion was investigated by measuring the time required to deflect a joystick in the direction of movement. The stimulus was a small light spot that moved at 2 deg s−1 for 1 s to the left or right; observation was binocular. Two conditions were tested: (A) a single moving stimulus suddenly appeared 5 deg left or right of fixation; (B) two stimuli were constantly visible at 5 deg left and 5 deg right of fixation before one of them began to move. Walls' (1951 A.M.A. Archives of Ophthalmology45 387 – 412) pointing test and a subset of Coren's (1993 Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society31 1 – 3) laterality questionnaire were used to identify two groups of eight subjects (matched for age, handedness, and gender) with pronounced dominance of their left or right eyes, respectively. The data suggest a higher suprathreshold motion sensitivity (better visuomotor performance) for right-eyed persons who were, on average, faster by 11 ms (A) and by 32 ms (B) than left-eyed persons. Although a similar effect of ocular dominance on suprathreshold motion sensitivity had been shown before [Schlykowa and Ehrenstein, 1993, in Gene - Brain - Behaviour Eds N Elsner, M Heisenberg (Stuttgart: Thieme) page 439], this was for monocular comparison of the dominant versus nondominant eye. Here, however, eye-dominance effects still occur with binocular vision, especially in condition B where motion has to be detected from two mirror-symmetric stimulus locations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document