A comparison of tests for quantifying sensory eye dominance

Bossi, Manuela; Hamm, Lisa M; Dahlmann‐Noor, Annegret; Dakin, Steven C.

doi:10.1016/j.visres.2018.09.006

Cited by 28 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We should also stress that this potential is achieved with most precision when ocular weights are estimated as described here (not when the balance point is measured in conventional usage) and when data are collected with a dual-presentation same-different paradigm (not with the method of adjustment). Other variants of the interocular combination paradigm were recently proposed that also seek to estimate a balance point (see Bossi et al, 2017), but they require observers to report judgments of perceived contrast or direction of motion and do not produce data that can be used to estimate ocular weights.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other tests also not considered in this article are based on binocular rivalry paradigms of various sorts (e.g., Dieter, Sy, & Blake, 2017;Y. Ding, Naber, Gayet, Van der Stigchel, & Paffen, 2018;Handa et al, 2006;Handa, Shimizu, Uozato, Shoji, & Ishikawa, 2012;Valle-Incla´n, Blanco, Soto, & Leiro´s, 2008;Xu, He, & Ooi, 2010; see also Bossi, Hamm, Dahlmann-Noor, & Dakin, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently

García‐Pérez

Peli

2019

i-Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently

García‐Pérez

Peli

2019

i-Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to previous studies, the depth of imbalanced interocular suppression has been quantified with laboratory-based psychophysical procedures, including global coherent motion task (Mansouri, Thompson, & Hess, 2008), binocular phase combination task (Ding, Klein, & Levi, 2013;Huang et al, 2009;Kwon et al, 2015;, dichoptic EDTRS task (Kwon et al, 2015), binocular rivalry task (Ooi & He, 2001), optokinetic nystagmus paradigm (Wen et al, 2018), dichoptic noise masking paradigm (Zhou et al, 2018), and so on (see a comparison of tests in Bossi, Hamm, Dahlmann-Noor, & Dakin, 2018). These techniques, although precise and quantitative, are not friendly for children in the clinical setting because they normally involve the use of complicated devices and/or take a long time to complete.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Convenient and Robust Test to Quantify Interocular Suppression for Children With Amblyopia

Chen

et al. 2019

i-Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interocular suppression was quantified by the interocular luminance difference that was needed when the two eyes were balanced in discriminating a black-white stripe formed butterfly stimulus, which was dichoptically presented through polarized glasses. Stronger interocular suppression was found in amblyopes than that in controls at both the near (33 cm, 0.95 AE 1.00 vs. 0.14 AE 0.18, p < .001) and far (5 m, 2.18 AE 0.97 vs. 0.24 AE 0.16, p < .001) viewing distances. The interocular suppression in amblyopes was significantly correlated with the interocular visual acuity difference, the visual acuity of amblyopic eye, the Worth-4-Dot test, and the stereo acuity at both the near and far distances (for all cases, p < .001). Our new test enables convenient and robust measurements of interocular suppression in children with amblyopia. The measured interocular suppression is in agreement with other clinical measures.

show abstract

“…Whether aging affects different binocular functions similarly or differently remains an open question. Although there is evidence that sensory eye dominance estimated with interocular contrast differences in binocular combination, binocular rivalry, and stereopsis was correlated with each other (Han, He, & Ooi, 2018;Xu, He, & Ooi, 2011), many other studies have suggested that different binocular functions may have different neural underpinnings, even for the same measurement but tested with different methods (Bossi, Hamm, Dahlmann-Noor, & Dakin, 2018;Bosten et al, 2015;Garnham & Sloper, 2006;Ukai et al, 2003;Wang et al, 2018). For example, Garnham and Sloper (2006) showed that the decline of stereoacuity measured with TNO chart was the greatest in some of his older subjects, as opposed to stereoacuity measured with Titmus, Frisby near, and Frisby-Davis distance stereo tests.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of physiological aging on binocular vision

Feng

Fan

et al. 2021

PsyCh Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We see the world with two eyes. Binocular vision provides more ample information through interocular interaction. Previous studies have shown that aging impairs a variety of visual functions, but how aging affects binocular vision is still unclear. In this study, we measured three typical binocular functions-binocular combination, binocular rivalry, and stereo vision-to investigate aging-related effects on binocular vision in a relatively large sample (48 younger adults and 27 older adults) with normal or corrected-to-normal distance vision and no ophthalmological and mental diseases. We found that there were no consistent aging-related declines in binocular vision, with the worst effect on alternation frequency in binocular rivalry and no effect on binocular phase combination and stereo vision tested by Titmus. In addition, aging changed the correlation pattern among some of these binocular functions. These results reflected (at least partially) different aging-related mechanism(s) in binocular vision.

show abstract

A comparison of tests for quantifying sensory eye dominance

Cited by 28 publications

References 63 publications

Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently

Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently

A Convenient and Robust Test to Quantify Interocular Suppression for Children With Amblyopia

Effect of physiological aging on binocular vision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About