Visual deficits in anisometropia

Levi, Dennis M.; McKee, Suzanne P.; Movshon, J. Anthony

doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.09.029

Cited by 106 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is well known that neurotransmitters are active players for retinal responses. In this study P50 and N95 wave amplitudes of pERG were decreased significantly in eyes with ambylopia whereas latency periods were not statistically different than the contralateral eyes [27][28][29][30] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Electrophysiologic evaluation of amblyopia

Hamurcu¹,

Çelik²,

Saricaoğlu³

et al. 2017

Eye Care Vis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare amblyopic eyes and other eyes of the unilaterally amblyopic patients in the terms of pattern visual evoked potentials (pVEP), pattern electroretinogram (pERG) and flash electroretinogram(fERG) tests. Methods:This study was performed at Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital between November-2015 and August-2016. Forty-one patients above the age of 15 with anisometropic amblyopia were evaluated for their amblyopic and other eyes. The patients were tested by Metrovision brand monpack model visual electrophysiology device for pVEP, fERG and pERG tests. Mean latance and amplitudes were examined statistically.Results: A statistically significant difference was found in decrease of P100 amplitude (p<0.05) and increase of P100 latency (p<0.01) of amblyopic eyes in all 5 patterns pVEP recorded. In pERG results P50 and N95 wave amplitudes were decreased in amblyopic eyes (p<0.01) but there was no statistical difference in latency period between amblyopic eyes and other eyes (p>0.05). In fERG results, rod response b wave amplitudes was lower and latency was increased in amblyopic eyes (p<0.01). However cone responses were no statistical difference in amblyopic and other eyes (p>0.05). Conclusion:According to our results, amblyopia is not only a cortical pathology. Also cortico-retinal pathologies that can not be detected by routine opthalmologic examination may accompany amblyopia. pERG, fERG and pVEP are objective methods for diagnosis and follow up of amblyopic patients and valuable guides for clinicians.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Levi et al [27] reported that decrease of P100 amplitude in eyes with amblyopia were caused by cortical neurons which get less impulse from the eyes with amblyopia. Prolonged pVEP latency periods of eyes with amblyopia may be related with prolonged conduction between retina and cortex.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrophysiologic evaluation of amblyopia

Hamurcu¹,

Çelik²,

Saricaoğlu³

et al. 2017

Eye Care Vis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the investigations focused on the stereoacuity, contrast sensitivity, accommodation and convergence, and interocular suppression of anisometropic patients. [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] In this retrospective study, the PEP among patients with different degrees of anisometropia were compared to elucidate whether PEP deviation was associated with the development of anisometropia. We found that the deviation of vertical PEP in patients with interocular SE difference ≥2.50D was much higher than that in patients with interocular SE difference <2.50D.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The association between increasing anisometropia and decreasing binocular function has been convincingly shown by artificially induced anisometropia in normal subjects. [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Perceptual eye position (PEP) is a new concept describing binocular alignment raised by Zhao et al in 2014. [23] It is one of the indicators used to evaluate fixation disparity and binocular function measured by a computer-controlled perceptual examination evaluation system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of perceptual eye positions among patients with different degrees of anisometropia

Zeng

Yang

et al. 2016

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to compare the perceptual eye positions (PEPs) among patients with different degrees of anisometropia.A total of 157 patients were recruited into this retrospective study. A detailed ophthalmic examination was conducted on each patient. The degree of refractive errors in the presence of astigmatism was converted into the degree of spherical equivalent (SE). Patients were divided into 3 groups according to the interocular SE difference: severe anisometropia group with interocular SE difference ≥2.50D, mild anisometropia group with interocular SE difference ≥1.00D and <2.50D, and non-anisometropia group with interocular SE difference <1.00D. The vertical and horizontal PEP were measured by a computer-controlled perceptual examination evaluation system. The results obtained from the 3 groups were compared and analyzed.A total of 157 patients were enrolled including 32 patients in the severe anisometropia group, 37 patients in the mild anisometropia group, and 88 patients in the non-anisometropia group. The quartiles of vertical PEP pixels were as follows: 7.50 (5.00, 16.75) in the severe anisometropia group, 5.00 (2.00, 7.50) in the mild anisometropia group, and 5.00 (3.00, 9.00) in the non-anisometropia group, respectively. The vertical PEP pixel was much higher in the severe anisometropia group than that in the other two groups (P < .05). The quartiles of horizontal PEP pixels were as follows: 27.50 (10.75, 67.50) in the severe anisometropia group, 17.00 (7.00, 54.50) in the mild anisometropia group, and 21.50 (11.00, 60.75) in the non-anisometropia group. There were no statistically significant differences among the 3 groups (P > .05).There was an obvious deviation of vertical PEP in patients with anisometropia ≥2.50D, indicating that the instability of vertical PEP might be associated with the development of severe anisometropia.Abbreviations: 3D = 3 dimension, FMNS = fusion maldevelopment nystagmus, MST = medial superior temporal, MT = medial temporal, PEP = perceptual eye position, SE = spherical equivalent.

show abstract

“…Many studies have reported the abnormal functions of the binocular vision due to ametropia, anisometropia, horizontal-vertical phoria, fixation disparity and age related ocular dysfunctions. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] These factors affect stereo acuity and differences in stereo acuity exist acuity among the people who are not stereo-blind.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Stereoscopic Fusional Area between People with Good and Poor Stereo Acuity

Kang¹,

Hong²

2016

Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

································································································································································································································Purpose: This study investigated differences in stereoscopic fusional area between those with good and poor stereo acuity in viewing stereoscopic displays. Methods: Stereo acuity of 39 participants (18 males and 21 females, 23.6±3.15 years) was measured with the random dot stereo butterfly method. Participants with stereo-blindness were not included. Stereoscopic fusional area was measured using stereoscopic stimulus by varying the amount of horizontal disparity in a stereoscopic 3D TV. Participants were divided into two groups of good and poor stereo acuity. Criterion for good stereo acuity was determined as less than 60 arc seconds. Measurements arising from the participants were statistically analyzed. Results: 26 participants were measured to have good stereo acuity and 13 participants poor stereo acuity. In case of the stereoscopic stimulus farther than the fixation point, threshold of horizontal disparity for those with poor stereo acuity were measured to be smaller than the threshold for those with good stereo acuity, with a statistically significant difference. On the other hand, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups, in case of the stereoscopic stimulus nearer to the fixation point. Conclusions: In viewing stereoscopic displays, the boundary of stereoscopic fusional area for the poor stereo acuity group was smaller than the boundary of good stereo acuity group only for the range behind the display. Hence, in viewing stereoscopic displays, participants with poor stereo acuity would have more difficulty perceiving the fused image at farther distances compared to participants with good stereo acuity.

show abstract

Visual deficits in anisometropia

Cited by 106 publications

References 48 publications

Electrophysiologic evaluation of amblyopia

Electrophysiologic evaluation of amblyopia

Comparison of perceptual eye positions among patients with different degrees of anisometropia

Comparison of Stereoscopic Fusional Area between People with Good and Poor Stereo Acuity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About