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

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.

Download Full-text

Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently

i-Perception ◽

10.1177/2041669519841397 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. 204166951984139 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

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.

Download Full-text

Ocular Dominance and Visual Function Testing

BioMed Research International ◽

10.1155/2013/238943 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 2013 ◽

pp. 1-7 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

D. Lopes-Ferreira ◽

H. Neves ◽

A. Queiros ◽

M. Faria-Ribeiro ◽

S. C. Peixoto-de-Matos ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Visual Acuity ◽

Refractive Error ◽

Visual Function ◽

Ocular Dominance ◽

Low Contrast ◽

Dominant Eye ◽

Type 3 ◽

Function Testing

Purpose. To show the distribution of ocular dominance as measured with sensory and eye sighting methods and its potential relationship with high and low contrast LogMAR visual acuity in presbyopic subjects.Method. Forty-four presbyopes (48.5 ± 3.5 years) participated in this study. Ocular dominance was determined by eye sighting (hole-in-card) and sensorial (+1.50 D lens induced blur) methods. According to the dominance detected with each method (RE: right eye or LE: left eye), patients were classified in dominance type 1 (RE/RE), type 2 (RE/LE), type 3 (LE/RE) and type 4 (LE/LE).Results. Baseline refractive error (MSE) was RE:−0.36 ± 1.67 D and LE:−0.35 ± 1.85 D (P=0.930). RE was the dominant eye in 61.4% and 70.5% of times as obtained from sensorial and sighting methods, respectively. Most frequent dominance was of type 1 (52.3%), in this case the RE showed statistically significant better distance low contrast LogMAR VA (0.04 LogMAR units) compared to the LE (P<0.05).Conclusions. The dominance was more frequent in RE in this sample. The eye sighting and sensorial methods to define ocular dominance agreed in more than half of cases. Amount of MSE was not significantly different between dominant and non-dominant eye. But in case of right dominance, the RE presented better distance low contrast VA compared to the LE.

Download Full-text

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

10.31234/osf.io/r49be ◽

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.

Download Full-text

On Interocular Transfer of the Movement Aftereffect in Individuals with and without Normal Binocular Vision

Perception ◽

10.1068/p050113 ◽

1976 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 113-118 ◽

Cited By ~ 45

Author(s):

Nicholas J Wade

Keyword(s):

Binocular Vision ◽

Interocular Transfer ◽

Normal Subjects ◽

The Other ◽

Reverse Direction ◽

Movement Aftereffect ◽

Eye Dominance ◽

Dominant Eye ◽

Two Indices ◽

Normal Binocular Vision

The duration of the movement aftereffect was measured in twenty-four normally binocular subjects and in eighteen subjects who lacked stereopsis as a consequence of childhood strabismus. Aftereffects were generated monocularly and binocularly, and compared to those which occurred after adaptation of one eye and testing with the other. Normal subjects were categorized on two indices of eye dominance, which involved sighting and rivalry tests. The monocular-aftereffect durations were slightly longer when the dominant eye was used, and interocular transfer from the dominant eye to the nondominant eye was greater than the transfer in the reverse direction; however, these differences were not statistically significant. The results from the strabismic subjects suggested that they fell into two distinct groups: one group (seven of the eighteen subjects) experienced no interocular transfer in either direction; the other group did yield some interocular transfer, and it was generally greater after adaptation of the dominant eye and testing the nondominant eye than in the reverse direction. Six of the seven subjects who failed to show any transfer still had misalignment of the visual axes, but this was not the case in any of the subjects exhibiting transfer.

Download Full-text

Marginal Integrity of Partial Ceramic Crowns Within Dentin With Different Luting Techniques and Materials

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/07-131 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 33 (5) ◽

pp. 516-525 ◽

Cited By ~ 24

Author(s):

F. Schenke ◽

K-A. Hiller ◽

G. Schmalz ◽

M. Federlin

Keyword(s):

Clinical Relevance ◽

The Self ◽

The Other ◽

Adhesive Material ◽

Marginal Integrity ◽

Resin Coating ◽

Partial Ceramic Crowns ◽

Relyx Unicem ◽

Composite Interface ◽

Ceramic Crowns

Clinical Relevance Resin coating improves the marginal seal of partial ceramic crowns to dentin compared to conventional luting, especially at the dentin/composite interface. However, the self-adhesive material RelyX Unicem shows significantly better marginal integrity than the other materials tested.

Download Full-text

What is Suppressed during Binocular Rivalry?

Perception ◽

10.1068/p090223 ◽

1980 ◽

Vol 9 (2) ◽

pp. 223-231 ◽

Cited By ~ 116

Author(s):

Randolph Blake ◽

David H Westendorf ◽

Randall Overton

Keyword(s):

Binocular Rivalry ◽

The Other ◽

Dominant Eye ◽

Prior Adaptation

To answer the question ‘What is suppressed during binocular rivalry?’ a series of three experiments was performed. In the first experiment observers viewed binocular rivalry between orthogonally oriented patterns. When the dominant and suppressed patterns were interchanged between the eyes observers continued seeing with the dominant eye, indicating that an eye, not a pattern, is suppressed during rivalry. In a second experiment it was found that a suppressed eye was able to contribute to stereopsis. A third experiment demonstrated that the predominance of an eye could be influenced by prior adaptation of the other eye, indicating that binocular mechanisms participate in the rivalry process.

Download Full-text

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

10.21203/rs.3.rs-49517/v1 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting ◽

10.1177/1071181397041002132 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 41 (2) ◽

pp. 1323-1327 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

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.

Download Full-text

Binocular Coordination, Fixation Disparity, and Ocular Dominance

Perception ◽

10.1068/v96p0208 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 25 (1_suppl) ◽

pp. 128-128 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

R Radach ◽

D Heller ◽

P Wiebories ◽

W Jaschinski

Keyword(s):

Visual Processing ◽

Temporal Dynamics ◽

Ocular Dominance ◽

Visual Direction ◽

Psychophysical Method ◽

Reliable Estimate ◽

Letter Detection ◽

Fixation Disparity ◽

Saccade Length ◽

Binocular Coordination

In a series of experiments we have quantified the spatial and temporal dynamics of binocular coordination. Tasks studied ranged from simple scanning and letter detection to complex visual processing in text reading. In all of these paradigms we found similar eye movement characteristics: in 70% to 90% of the observations, the saccade of the abducting eye is larger, relative differences being in the order of 5% to 15% of the amplitude. During the subsequent fixation the disparity is typically reduced by a convergence movement (about 1 deg s−1), which sometimes exceeds the initial saccade amplitude asymmetry. Interestingly, the relative vergence contributions of the eyes depend on saccade length. For progressive 2-letter reading saccades, the left (adducting) eye accounts for only 20% of the total movement as compared to about 70% for 14-letter saccades. Up to now our analysis was limited to relative rather than absolute estimates of fixation disparity. To overcome this restriction, we measured disparity using the psychophysical method of dichoptically presented nonius lines as well as direct infrared pupil-reflection registration of binocular vs monocular fixation. Both measures were independent of target eccentricity (within a range typical for reading) and produced similar subject rank orders (Spearman's \rho=0.75). When we studied vergence movements in a letter detection task using autostereograms with different levels of virtual depth, it became clear that spatiotemporal vergence parameters can be quite asymmetric for both eyes. This led to the question of whether unequal contributions to vergence may be related to ocular dominance. This hypothesis is currently being investigated with a new procedure that provides a reliable estimate of subjective visual direction (the ‘cyclopean eye’) under static viewing conditions.

Download Full-text

Suprathreshold Motion Sensitivity and Ocular Dominance

Perception ◽

10.1068/v970093 ◽

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.

Download Full-text