Effect of Ocular Dominance on the Latency and Amplitude of Visual Evoked Potentials

kutty, Jagadamba .A Karthiyanee

doi:10.9790/0853-0241924

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It should be noted that we did not perform any eye dominance test so the discussion on the link between the electrophysiological VEP dominance and the actual sighting eye dominance is out of scope. Studies which analysed the association between transient-pattern VEP responses and eye dominance tests showed that on average, peak P100 latency of a dominant eye in healthy subjects is decreased and P100 amplitude is increased, 29 but the congruence was not absolute. Nevertheless, the lack of asymmetry in visual information processing which we observed in children with DS is in line with atypical cerebral lateralisation in this syndrome that has been reported previously.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the prolongation latency of visual evoked potentials a pathological sign in children with Down’s syndrome without ocular abnormalities? Case–control study of children with Down’s syndrome

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo evaluate retino-cortical function in children with Down’s syndrome (DS) and no evident ocular abnormalities beyond mild refractive error, by recording visual evoked potentials (VEP) in response to pattern-reversal stimuli and comparing to those of age-matched healthy controls.Methods and analysisAll the children with DS registered at Split-Dalmatia County who met inclusion criteria of no ocular abnormalities and with refraction error between −0.5 and +2.0 D, and their age-matched healthy controls were included in the study (n=36 children, N=72 eyes, for both groups, respectively, with the same age of 9±2 years). Transient VEP was recorded and the waves with a positive peak as a response to a pattern-reversal stimulus, were analysed. The peak P100 latency, defined as the time from the stimulus onset to the main positive peak, and peak to peak amplitudes were measured.ResultsWhile P100 wave amplitudes were comparable between two groups (p=0.804), P100 latencies were from 4.3 to 28.5 ms longer in children with DS (p<0.001). Interocular latency difference between a VEP dominant and an inferior eye was pronounced in healthy (1.2 ms (0.2–4.0), but was almost diminished in children with DS (0.3 ms (0.1–0.5), p<0.001).ConclusionOur study has demonstrated that VEP response is divergent in children with DS compared with their age-matched healthy controls, indicating possible structural or functional abnormalities of the visual cortex. As VEP results are helpful in the diagnosis and treatment planning of vision-related disorders, we should reconsider the use of common VEP diagnostic criteria in subpopulation of children with DS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the prolongation latency of visual evoked potentials a pathological sign in children with Down’s syndrome without ocular abnormalities? Case–control study of children with Down’s syndrome

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Monocular and binocular reading performance in subjects with normal binocular vision

Johansson

Pansell

Ygge

et al. 2014

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:It is well known that problems with binocular vision can cause issues for reading; less known is to what extent binocular vision improves reading performance. The purpose of this study was to explore the role of binocularity by directly comparing monocular and binocular reading in subjects with typical reading skills and normal binocular vision. A secondary purpose was to assess any asymmetry in monocular performance and its association with the sighting dominant eye. Methods: In a balanced repeated measures experiment, 18 subjects read paragraphs of text under monocular and binocular conditions. All subjects went through an optometric examination before inclusion. Reading speed and eye movements were recorded with an eye tracker. Results: The mean difference in reading speed (2.1 per cent) between monocular (dominant and non-dominant eye averaged) and binocular reading speed was not significant. A significant difference in reading speed was found between binocular and the non-dominant eye, as determined by the far sighting test (p = 0.03). Monocular reading showed significantly increased (8.9 per cent) fixation duration (p < 0.01) and longer regressive saccades by 0.43 character spaces (p < 0.01). Reading with the non-dominant eye, as determined by the near sighting test, showed increased progressive saccade length by 0.2 characters compared to the dominant eye (p = 0.03). No other significant differences between dominant and non-dominant eyes were found. The agreement between the faster reading eye and ocular dominance was 44 to 56 per cent depending on whether dominance was determined at near or far. Conclusion:The outcomes suggest that in subjects with normal binocular vision, there is no marked enhancement in reading performance by binocular vision when reading paragraphs of text. Furthermore, the monocular reading performance appears to be close to equal and any small differences in performance appear not to be strongly associated with ocular dominance.

show abstract

The effect of contrast on monocular versus binocular reading performance

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The binocular advantage in reading performance is typically small. On the other hand research shows binocular reading to be remarkably robust to degraded stimulus properties. We hypothesized that this robustness may stem from an increasing binocular contribution. The main objective was to compare monocular and binocular performance at different stimulus contrasts and assess the level of binocular superiority. A secondary objective was to assess any asymmetry in performance related to ocular dominance. In a balanced repeated measures experiment 18 subjects read texts at three levels of contrast monocularly and binocularly while their eye movements were recorded. The binocular advantage increased with reduced contrast producing a 7% slower monocular reading at 40% contrast, 9% slower at 20% contrast, and 21% slower at 10% contrast. A statistically significant interaction effect was found in fixation duration displaying a more adverse effect in the monocular condition at lowest contrast. No significant effects of ocular dominance were observed. The outcome suggests that binocularity contributes increasingly to reading performance as stimulus contrast decreases. The strongest difference between monocular and binocular performance was due to fixation duration. The findings may pose a clinical point that it may be necessary to consider tests at different contrast levels when estimating reading performance.

show abstract

Effect of Ocular Dominance on the Latency and Amplitude of Visual Evoked Potentials

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

Is the prolongation latency of visual evoked potentials a pathological sign in children with Down’s syndrome without ocular abnormalities? Case–control study of children with Down’s syndrome

Is the prolongation latency of visual evoked potentials a pathological sign in children with Down’s syndrome without ocular abnormalities? Case–control study of children with Down’s syndrome

Monocular and binocular reading performance in subjects with normal binocular vision

The effect of contrast on monocular versus binocular reading performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About