PurposeWe set out to determine whether individuals with central field loss benefit from using two eyes to perform a grasping task. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that this advantage is correlated with coarse stereopsis, in addition to binocular summation indices of visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and binocular visual field.MethodsSixteen participants with macular degeneration and nine age-matched controls placed pegs on a pegboard, while their eye and hand movements were recorded. Importantly, the pegboard was placed near eye height, to minimize the contribution of monocular cues to peg position. All participants performed this task binocularly and monocularly. Before the experiment, we performed microperimetry to determine the profile of field loss in each eye and the locations of eccentric fixation (if applicable). In addition, we measured both acuity and contrast sensitivity monocularly and binocularly, and stereopsis by using both a RanDot test and a custom stereo test.ResultsPeg-placement time was significantly shorter and participants made significantly fewer errors with binocular than with monocular viewing in both the patient and control groups. Among participants with measurable stereopsis, binocular advantage in peg-placement time was significantly correlated with stereoacuity (ρ = −0.78; P = 0.003). In patients without measurable stereopsis, the binocular advantage was related significantly to the overlap in the scotoma between the two eyes (ρ = −0.81; P = 0.032).ConclusionsThe high correlation between grasp performance and stereoacuity indicates that coarse stereopsis may benefit tasks of daily living for individuals with central field loss.
In clinical practice Cerebral Visual Impairment (CVI) is typically diagnosed by observation of abnormal visually guided behaviors which indicate higher visual function deficits (HVFDs) suggesting abnormal brain development or brain damage in a child with a suitable clinical history. HVFDs can occur even in the presence of good visual acuity and may remain undiagnosed because the good visual acuity does not prompt further investigation. This leads to a lack of understanding of the child’s visual perceptual difficulties. In a prospective study, we determined the spectrum of HVFDs in a group of children with history suggestive of brain damage or disruption of brain development and an independent diagnosis of CVI in comparison with typically developing children with a structured 51 question inventory, the Higher Visual Function Question Inventory (HVFQI-51) adapted from the Cerebral Vision Impairment Inventory, CVI-I. Here, we show that the HVFQI-51 can detect a range of HVFDs in children with CVI with good visual acuity and clearly distinguishes these children from typically developing children. HVFDs in our study group could mostly be attributed to dorsal stream visual processing dysfunction though the spectrum varied between children. We report on the inclusion of the “not applicable” response option in analysis providing a picture of HVFDs more in tune with the overall disability of each child. We also propose a subset of 11 questions (Top-11) which discriminate between children with CVI vs. behaviors seen in typical children: this provides both a potential screening tool for initial assessment of HVFDs and a measure of CVI-related impairment, and needs further validation in a secondary independent sample.
In this study, we address the question of whether a target is foveated during smooth pursuit. Specifically, we examine whether smooth pursuit eye movements land near the center-of-mass of the target, as is the case for saccades. To that end, we instructed eight untrained, healthy participants to follow moving targets, presented monocularly in a scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Stimuli moved either in a modified step-ramp (smooth pursuit), or made a single step (saccade), stepping 6° from the center. Targets were ring-shaped and either 0.6° or 1.7° in diameter. In an additional set of experiments, two participants collected more extensive data on smooth pursuit and saccades for a larger range of target sizes (0.6°, 1.7°, or 4.3°). During pursuit, eyes were rarely placed at target center, even when participants' fixational stability was taken into account. Furthermore, there was a clear tendency for distance from target center to increase with target size. This outcome was in contrast to saccades, where there was no effect of target size across participants. The difference in foveal placement between the two types of eye movements is consistent with their different purposes: closer inspection of the target for saccades versus maintenance of the target in the visual field for smooth pursuit.
We examined how the frequency of the fixated word influences the spatiotemporal distribution of covert attention during reading. Participants discriminated gaze-contingent probes that occurred with different spatial and temporal offsets from randomly chosen fixation points during reading. We found that attention was initially focused at fixation and that subsequent defocusing was slower when the fixated word was lower in frequency. Later in a fixation, attention oriented more towards the next saccadic target for high- than for low-frequency words. These results constitute the first report of the time course of the effect of load on attentional engagement and orienting in reading. They are discussed in the context of serial and parallel models of reading.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.