Prehension Deficits in Amblyopia

Grant, Simon; Melmoth, Dean R.; Morgan, M.; Finlay, Alison L.

doi:10.1167/iovs.06-0976

Cited by 140 publications

(160 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

141

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thirdly, development of the brain, especially at higher cortical levels, may affect together visual acuity, distance estimation and visual disorientation. The correlation of the domain "distance estimation" to both acuity and degree of binocular vision may suggest that both are limiting factors in final reaching to and grasping of objects (prehension) [9]. The domain "visual disorientation" may be functionally analogous to positional uncertainty [10] and thus possibly be influenced by the acuity of the amblyopic eye.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Amblyopia and Strabismus Questionnaire (A&SQ): clinical validation in a historic cohort

Graaf

Sterre

Saar

et al. 2007

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background We recently developed the Amblyopia & Strabismus Questionnaire (A&SQ) to assess the quality of life in amblyopia and/or strabismus patients, and evaluated its content and criterion validity. The A&SQ was now validated clinically by correlating its outcome with past and current orthoptic parameters in a historic cohort of amblyopia and/or strabismus patients. Methods The cohort was derived from all 471 patients who were treated by occlusion therapy in the Waterland Hospital in Purmerend between 1968Purmerend between and 1974Purmerend between and born between 1962Purmerend between and 1972. All children with insufficient visual acuity from the Waterland area had been referred to a single ophthalmologist and orthoptist. Of these, 203 were traced, and 174 filled out the A&SQ. In 137 of these, binocular vision, visual acuity, and angle of strabismus were reassessed 30-35 years after occlusion therapy. These clinical parameters were correlated with the five A&SQ

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Amblyopia and Strabismus Questionnaire (A&SQ): clinical validation in a historic cohort

Graaf

Sterre

Saar

et al. 2007

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Binocular disparity cues help us guide our hand movements precisely [79][80][81][82] and both children and adults with impaired stereo vision perform worse on a range of visuomotor tasks than their peers with normal stereoacuity. [83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90] Stereoacuity has also been linked to better reading ability, 91,92 perhaps because both stereopsis and reading require precise control of eye movements. 93 Untreated children with infantile esotropia lag behind on developmental milestones but catch up following early alignment surgery (in the first year of life), 94 an outcome that the authors attribute to better binocular vision and stereopsis.…”

Section: The Clinical Importance Of Stereoacuity Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stereo vision and strabismus

Read

2014

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Binocular stereopsis, or stereo vision, is the ability to derive information about how far away objects are, based solely on the relative positions of the object in the two eyes. It depends on both sensory and motor abilities. In this review, I briefly outline some of the neuronal mechanisms supporting stereo vision, and discuss how these are disrupted in strabismus. I explain, in some detail, current methods of assessing stereo vision and their pros and cons. Finally, I review the evidence supporting the clinical importance of such measurements.

show abstract

“…Moreover, adults with binocular dysfunctions due to these conditions exhibit similar deficits when reaching to grasp isolated objects (e.g., Grant et al 2007;Melmoth et al 2009;Pardhan et al 2011) to those of normal subjects forced to perform equivalent actions using one eye alone. This raises final questions as to whether sub-optimal gaze strategies are adopted when binocular vision is reduced or absent and whether this contributes to poorer hand action control.…”

Section: [Figure 1 Near Here]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gaze–grasp coordination in obstacle avoidance: differences between binocular and monocular viewing

Grant

2015

Exp Brain Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link AbstractMost adults can skillfully avoid potential obstacles when acting in everyday cluttered scenes. We examined how gaze and hand movements are normally coordinated for obstacle avoidance and whether these are altered when binocular depth information is unavailable. Visual fixations and hand movement kinematics were simultaneously recorded while 13 right-handed subjects reached-toprecision grasp a cylindrical household object presented alone or with a potential obstacle (wine glass) located to its left (thumb's grasp-side), right or just behind it (both closer to the finger's grasp-side) using binocular or monocular vision. Gaze and hand movement strategies differed significantly by view and obstacle location. With binocular vision, initial fixations were near the target's centre of mass (COM) around the time of hand movement onset, but usually shifted to end just above the thumb's grasp-site at initial object contact, this mainly be made by the thumb, consistent with selecting this digit for guiding the grasp. This strategy was associated with faster binocular hand movements and improved end-point grip precision across all trials than with monocular viewing, during which subjects usually continued to fixate the target closer to its COM despite a similar prevalence of thumb-first contacts. While subjects looked directly at the obstacle at each location on a minority of trials and their overall fixations on the target were somewhat biased towards the grasp-side nearest to it, these gaze behaviours were particularly marked on monocular vision-obstacle behind trials which also commonly ended in finger-first contact. Subjects avoided colliding with the wine glass under both views when on the right (finger-side) of the workspace by producing slower and straighter reaches, with this and the behind obstacle location also resulting in 'safer' (i.e., narrower) peak grip apertures and longer deceleration times than when the goal-object was alone or the obstacle was on its thumb-side. But monocular reach paths were more variable and deceleration times were selectively prolonged on finger-side and behind obstacle trials, with this latter condition further resulting in selectively increased grip closure times and corrections. Binocular vision thus provided added advantages for collision avoidance, known to require intact dorsal cortical stream processing mechanisms, particularly when the target of the grasp and potential obstacle to it were fairly closely separated in depth. Different accounts of the altered monocular gaze behaviour converged on the conclusion that additional perceptual and/or attentional resources are likely engaged compared to when continuous binocular depth information is available. Implications for people lacking binocular stereopsis are briefly considered.

show abstract

Prehension Deficits in Amblyopia

Cited by 140 publications

References 45 publications

Amblyopia and Strabismus Questionnaire (A&SQ): clinical validation in a historic cohort

Amblyopia and Strabismus Questionnaire (A&SQ): clinical validation in a historic cohort

Stereo vision and strabismus

Gaze–grasp coordination in obstacle avoidance: differences between binocular and monocular viewing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About