Sighting dominance: An explanation based on the processing of visual direction in tests of sighting dominance

This study investigated the meaning of sighting dominance by examining its relationship to the processing of visual direction. In one experiment subjects' behavior in two sighting tests was evaluated. The data indicated that the reference point used in the tests is not the dominant eye but a central point consistent with the location of the visual egocenter. In a second experiment sighting dominance and the location of the egocenter were measured. The results indicated that the sighting eye is the eye nearest to the egocenter. Further analysis confirmed that sighting tests involve the processing of visual direction specified from the egocenter. The findings suggest that one eye is used in sighting tests because the tests force monocular viewing. The meaning of sighting dominance within the context of sighting behavior was discussed with the conclusion that sighting dominance is best understood as a residual effect caused by the egocenter being to one side of the midline and by the monocular demands of sighting tests.     

Perceptual compensation for eye torsion

To correctly perceive visual directions relative to the head, one needs to compensate for the eye's orientation in the head. In this study we focus on compensation for the eye's torsion regarding objects that contain the line of sight and objects that do not pass through the fixation point. Subjects judged the location of flashed probe points relative to their binocular plane of regard, the mid-sagittal or the transverse plane of the head, while fixating straight ahead, right upward, or right downward at 30 cm distance, to evoke eye torsion according to Listing's law. In addition, we investigated the effects of head-tilt and monocular versus binocular viewing. Flashed probe points were correctly localized in the plane of regard irrespective of eccentric viewing, head-tilt, and monocular or binocular vision in nearly all subjects and conditions. Thus, eye torsion that varied by +/-9 degrees across these different conditions was in general compensated for. However, the position of probes relative to the midsagittal or the transverse plane, both true head-fixed planes, was misjudged. We conclude that judgment of the orientation of the plane of regard, a plane that contains the line of sight, is veridical, indicating accurate compensation for actual eye torsion. However, when judgment has to be made of a head-fixed plane that is offset with respect to the line of sight, eye torsion that accompanies that eye orientation appears not to be taken into account correctly.     

Binocular summation and peripheral visual response time.

Six males were administered a peripheral visual response time test to the onset of brief, small stimuli imaged in 10 degrees arc separation intervals across the dark adapted horizontal retinal meridian under binocular and both monocular viewing conditions. This was done in an attempt to verify the existence of peripheral binocular summation using a response time measure. The results indicated that from 50 degrees arc right to 50 degrees arc left of the line of sight binocular summation is a reasonable explanation for the significantly faster binocular data. The stimulus position by viewing eye interaction was also significant. A discussion of these and other analyses is presented along with a review of related literature.     

The influence of ocular dominance on monovision--the interaction between binocular visual functions and the state of dominant eye's correction

PURPOSE: To examine the interaction between binocular visual functions and the correction of the dominant eye, i.e., for far vs. near vision in monovision. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ten healthy subjects without any ophthalmological disease were examined. After cycloplegia, the eyes of the subjects were corrected by soft contact lenses (difference in lens power between the lenses: 2.5 D) with an artificial pupil(diameter: 3.0 mm). Visual acuity at various distances, contrast sensitivity, and near stereoacuity were measured while the dominant eye determined by the hole-in-card test (sighting dominance) was corrected for far and near vision. RESULTS: Binocular visual acuity was better than 1.0(20/20) at all distances. When the dominant eye was corrected for distance, the binocular visual acuity at 0.7 m was better than the monocular visual acuity; contrast sensitivity was better within the spatial frequency range of 0.5-4.0 cycles per degree, and near stereoacuity by Titmus stereo tests improved. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that dominant eyes should be corrected for far vision for better binocular summation at middle distances, and near stereoacuity.     

Dynamic visual fields of one-eyed observers.

BACKGROUND: The horizontal binocular visual field can extend to more than 200 degrees, while a monocular field is limited to 160 degrees. Additionally, the nose and other facial structures may block the monocular field further during certain eye movements. The purpose of this study was to compare the monocular against the binocular visual field and determine if head and eye movements can functionally overcome any measured deficit. METHODS: In Experiment 1, visual fields were measured monocularly with a bowl perimeter using 5 fixation positions. Binocular visual fields were calculated by combining the monocular visual field with its mirror image. In Experiment 2, subjects were allowed to make head, eye, and body movements to search for flashing lights 360 degrees around them, spaced every 45 degrees. The numbers of lights identified were compared for the subjects performing monocularly versus binocularly. RESULTS: The size of the overall monocular visual field was found to vary between 48% and 76% of the binocular visual field, depending on eye position. For the flashing light experiment, head and eye movements could not overcome the entire visual-field deficit with monocular viewing. Monocular performance remained 11.4% less than binocular performance. CONCLUSIONS: The visual-field deficit seen with monocular viewing is greatest with nasal fixation, and head and eye movements cannot totally compensate for this deficit when viewing time is limited. Vision standards that require full visual fields in each eye are more appropriate for occupations in which peripheral visual targets must be identified and visual search time is limited.     

A binocular perimetry study of the causes and implications of sensory eye dominance

Sensory eye dominance (SED) reflects an imbalance of interocular inhibition in the binocular network. Extending an earlier work (Ooi & He, 2001) that measured global SED within the central 6°, the current study measured SED locally at 17 locations within the central 8° of the binocular visual field. The eccentricities (radius) chosen for this, "binocular perimetry", study were 0° (fovea), 2° and 4°. At each eccentricity, eight concentric locations (polar angle: 0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, 180°, 225°, 270°, and 315°) were tested. The outcome, an SED map, sets up comparison between local SED and other visual functions [monocular contrast threshold, binocular disparity threshold, reaction time to detect depth, the dynamics of binocular rivalry and motor eye dominance]. Our analysis shows that an observer's SED varies gradually across the binocular visual field both in its sign and magnitude. The strong eye channel revealed in the SED measurement does not always have a lower monocular contrast threshold, and does not need to be the motor dominant eye. There exists significant correlation between SED and binocular disparity threshold, and between SED and the response time to detect depth of a random-dot stereogram. A significant correlation is also found between SED and the eye that predominates when viewing an extended duration binocular rivalry stimulus. While it is difficult to attribute casual factors based on correlation analyses, these observations agree with the notion that an imbalance of interocular inhibition, which is largely revealed as SED, is a significant factor impeding binocular visual perception.     

Perceived visual direction near an occluder

When an opaque object occludes a more distant object, the two eyes often see different parts of the distant object. Hering's laws of visual direction make an interesting prediction for this situation: the part seen by both eyes should be seen in a different direction than the part seen by one eye. We examined whether this prediction holds by asking observers to align a vertical monocular line segment with a nearby vertical binocular segment. We found it necessary to correct the alignment data for vergence errors, which were measured in a control experiment, and for monocular spatial distortions, which were also measured in a control experiment. Settings were reasonably consistent with Hering's laws when the monocular and binocular targets were separated by 30 arcmin or more. Observers aligned the targets as if they were viewing them from one eye only when they were separated by 2 arcmin; this behavior is consistent with an observation reported by Erkelens and colleagues. The same behavior was observed when the segments were horizontal and when no visible occluder was present. Perceived visual direction when the two eyes see different parts of a distant target is assigned in a fashion that minimizes, but does not eliminate, distortions of the shape of the occluded object.     

Capture of visual direction in dynamic vergence is reduced with flashed monocular lines

The visual direction of a continuously presented monocular object is captured by the visual direction of a closely adjacent binocular object, which questions the reliability of nonius lines for measuring vergence. This was shown by Erkelens, C. J., and van Ee, R. (1997a,b) [Capture of the visual direction: An unexpected phenomenon in binocular vision. Vision Research, 37, 1193-1196; Capture of the visual direction of monocular objects by adjacent binocular objects. Vision Research, 37, 1735-1745] stimulating dynamic vergence by a counter phase oscillation of two square random-dot patterns (one to each eye) that contained a smaller central dot-free gap (of variable width) with a vertical monocular line oscillating in phase with the random-dot pattern of the respective eye; subjects adjusted the motion-amplitude of the line until it was perceived as (nearly) stationary. With a continuously presented monocular line, we replicated capture of visual direction provided the dot-free gap was narrow: the adjusted motion-amplitude of the line was similar as the motion-amplitude of the random-dot pattern, although large vergence errors occurred. However, when we flashed the line for 67 ms at the moments of maximal and minimal disparity of the vergence stimulus, we found that the adjusted motion-amplitude of the line was smaller; thus, the capture effect appeared to be reduced with flashed nonius lines. Accordingly, we found that the objectively measured vergence gain was significantly correlated (r=0.8) with the motion-amplitude of the flashed monocular line when the separation between the line and the fusion contour was at least 32 min arc. In conclusion, if one wishes to estimate the dynamic vergence response with psychophysical methods, effects of capture of visual direction can be reduced by using flashed nonius lines.     

Patterns of binocular suppression and accommodation in monovision

The binocular depth of focus of monovision wearers was compared to the sum of the two monocularly determined depths of focus. Observers fell into three groups based upon ocular sighting dominance. Complete binocular summation of the monocular depths of focus was observed in subjects without a preferred fixating eye. Subjects who preferred to fixate with one eye had difficulty suppressing blur of that eye while the binocular target was within the depth of focus of the nonpreferred eye. A third group showed partial summation of the two monocular depths of focus. Similar patterns of accommodative response, measured objectively with the SRI optometer, were observed in subjects wearing monovision corrections. Accommodative response to sinusoidal variations in blur was controlled primarily by the dominant sighting eye. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of interocular suppression of anisometropic blur in monovision correction and the influence of ocular dominance upon this suppression process.     

Independent visual threshold measurements in the two eyes of freely moving rats and mice using a virtual-reality optokinetic system

Slow horizontal head and body rotation occurs in mice and rats when the visual field is rotated around them, and these optomotor movements can be produced reliably in a virtual-reality system. If one eye is closed, only motion in the temporal-to-nasal direction for the contralateral eye evokes the tracking response. When the maximal spatial frequency capable of driving the response ("acuity") was measured under monocular and binocular viewing conditions, the monocular acuity was identical to the binocular acuity measured with the same rotation direction. Thus, the visual capabilities of each eye can be measured under binocular conditions simply by changing the direction of rotation. Lesions of the visual cortex had no effect on the acuities measured with the virtual optokinetic system, whereas perceptual thresholds obtained previously with the Visual Water Task are. The optokinetic acuities were also consistently lower than acuity estimates from the Visual Water Task, but contrast sensitivities were the same or better. These data show that head-tracking in a virtual optokinetic drum is driven by subcortical, lower frequency, and contralateral pathways.     

A VEP measure of the binocular fusion of horizontal and vertical disparities

PURPOSE: Because of the lateral separation of the orbits, the retinal images differ in the two eyes. These differences are reconciled into a single image through sensory and motor fusional mechanisms. This study demonstrates electrophysiologically the effects that normal horizontal and vertical fusional processes have on the processing of monocular position signals. METHODS: VEPs were recorded in 16 healthy adults in response to a vernier onset-offset target presented to one eye. The vernier offsets appeared and disappeared at 2 Hz and were introduced into bar targets that were oriented either vertically (horizontal offsets) or horizontally (vertical offsets). The magnitude of the offsets was varied over the range of 0.5 to 10 arc min. VEP amplitude was measured as a function of the size of the dynamic offset under monocular viewing conditions and in the presence of two different static targets presented to the other eye. One of the static targets matched the dynamic test, except that it had no vernier offsets. The other static target, the static pedestal, matched the dynamic test, but contained a set of static vernier offsets in locations corresponding to the locations of the dynamic offsets presented to the other eye. RESULTS: VEP amplitude was a monotonically increasing function of vernier offset size under monocular viewing conditions. The addition of the static target without offsets in the other eye resulted in an increased amplitude VEP response. The addition of the static target with vernier offsets resulted in a decrease in VEP amplitude for both horizontal and vertical disparities. CONCLUSIONS: The normal process of fusion results in a single visual direction. To obtain a single visual direction, the visual system must synthesize a binocular visual direction that differs from the monocular components. One of the conditions (the static pedestal with offsets) produces binocular visual direction shifts that degrade the appearance of vernier onset-offset, and reduce VEP amplitude for both horizontal and vertical disparities. This characteristic evoked response marker is a promising tool for measuring binocular fusion objectively in patients with strabismus.     

The cyclopean eye in vision: the new and old data continue to hit you right between the eyes

We argue against recent claims by Erkelens and van Ee (Vision Res., in press) and by Erkelens (Vision Res. 40 (2000) 2411) that "the concept of the cyclopean eye is em leader always irrelevant as far as vision is concerned" (p. 1157) [corrected] and that "perceived direction during monocular viewing is based on the signals of the viewing eye only" (p. 2411), respectively. In Experiment 1, we presented a pair of small lights on a visual axis and measured the absolute visual direction of the near light with reference to different parts of the face. The near light appeared in front of the bridge of the nose or very near it, contrary to what was expected from Erkelens and van Ee's claim that monocular stimuli are seen in their correct locations. In Experiment 2, we replicated Erkelens' experiments with measurements of phoria and analyses of eye movements. The results confirmed his finding that the cyclopean illusion occurred rarely in the monocular condition, but our phoria and eye movement data provided the basis for a very different interpretation. Our data show that the oculomotor signal in his particular monocular condition was considerably weaker than in his binocular condition; therefore, the rarity of the monocular cyclopean illusion is not surprising. Moreover, since both claims above are based on an over-generalization of the results of Erkelens' study, neither claim is persuasive.     

Characteristics of dynamic accommodation responses: comparison between the dominant and non-dominant eyes

Accommodation responses of dominant and non-dominant eyes were compared in 18 healthy subjects aged 19–21 years to clarify the characteristics of dynamic accommodation. Internal targets were placed at −0.25D and −4.0D in an infrared optometer of a modified model, and external targets (brightness 30cd/cm², diameter 35 mm) identical in appearance with the internal targets, were placed 4.0 m and 0.25 m in front of the eyes. Three experiments were carried out by monocular viewing of the internal targets and monocular and binocular viewing of the external targets, and the results were compared between the dominant and non-dominant eyes. In viewing the internal targets, near-to-far responses were suppressed. In binocular viewing, the accuracy of accommodative positron was increased, and the function of dynamic responses was improved. Furthermore, myopic shifts were observed in the near position after far-to-near accommodation and in the far position after near-to-far accommodation in the dominant eye compared with the non dominant eye, and shortening of the response time and an increase in the response velocity were noted only in binocular viewing. These findings suggest that the dominant eye is in a tonic state and plays the primary role in far-to-near accommodation in binocular viewing.     

Reading with central scotomas: is there a binocular gain?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare reading performance under binocular versus monocular viewing conditions in patients with bilateral age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: Twenty-two patients with AMD participated. Distance acuity, reading acuity, and contrast sensitivity were recorded binocularly and monocularly with the better eye. An infrared eye tracker recorded eye movements during reading. Reading speed and reading eye movement parameters, including number of fixations and regressions, fixation duration, and number of saccades to find the next line, were calculated for both viewing conditions. The difference between binocular and monocular performance (binocular gain) was computed. Regression analysis was used to determine whether intraocular differences in distance and reading acuity and contrast sensitivity were predictive of binocular gain. RESULTS: Reading speed when using both eyes was highly correlated with the reading speed for the better eye. There was a small, but not significant, advantage of binocular viewing (6.9 words/minute, p = 0.33). No significant difference was detected in any eye movement parameters when comparing both eyes with the better eye. Although some patients showed either positive or negative binocular gain, the amount of gain was not predicted by intraocular differences in acuity or contrast sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was no significant difference between binocular and monocular reading performance in patients with AMD.     

Binocular accommodation reaction and response times for normal observers

Accommodation was recorded from right and left eyes of visually normal observers in both binocular and monocular viewing. Reaction and response times were similar in monocular and binocular viewing and are not influenced by eye dominance. Far-to-near responses were significantly quicker than near-to-far responses. The origin of this difference may be a feature of the elastic properties of the accommodation mechanism. Limited data are presented that indicate that the slowing of accommodation speed with age affects the near-to-far response disproportionally. Errors in the initial direction of response were fewer in binocular viewing in comparison with monocular viewing.     

Individual differences in binocular coordination are uncovered by directly comparing monocular and binocular reading conditions

Purpose. We evaluated systematically binocular coordination during a reading task by comparing binocular and monocular reading, and considering the potential effects of individual heterophoria and eye dominance. Methods. A total of 13 participants (aged 19-29 years, refractive errors -0.5 to 0.125 diopters [D]) read single sentences in a haploscope while eye movements were measured with an EyeLinkII eyetracker. Results. When reading monocularly, saccade amplitudes increased by 0.04 degrees and first fixation durations became longer by approximately 10 ms. Furthermore, saccade disconjugacies increased, and compensatory vergence drifts during fixation turned into a divergent drift relative to the viewing distance. The vergence angle adjusted for the actual viewing distance became less convergent during monocular reading by 0.5 degrees. Moreover, in participants who were almost orthophoric, only the first fixation duration became longer (by 20 ms) when the reading conditions changed from binocular to monocular. For exophoric participants, all parameters of binocular coordination changed, and first fixation duration decreased by 20 ms. When reading monocularly, no differences between the dominant right eye and the nondominant left eye were found. Conclusions. Because of obvious differences in binocular coordination between monocular and binocular reading, some vergence adjustments are driven actively by fusional processes. Furthermore, higher demands on these binocular fusional processes can be uncovered only by a detailed evaluation of monocular reading conditions.     

The effect of binocular and monocular distractors on saccades in participants with normal binocular vision

We tested the effect of visual distractors presented monocularly and binocularly on saccade latency and accuracy to determine whether differences occur in saccadic planning with binocular or monocular visual input. For five participants with normal binocular single vision (BSV), saccade latency and accuracy were compared with distractors presented to the dominant eye, non-dominant eye or to both eyes. Eye movements of the dominant eye were recorded using a Skalar infra-red recorder. In the presence of normal BSV, the effect of distractors is significantly larger for saccade latency and accuracy with binocular distractor presentation than for monocular presentations, with no difference between distrators presented to the dominant or non-dominant eye. The implications of these results are discussed with regard to saccade programming.     

A binocular perimetry study of the causes and implications of sensory eye dominance

Sensory eye dominance (SED) reflects an imbalance of interocular inhibition in the binocular network. Extending an earlier work (Ooi & He, 2001) that measured global SED within the central 6°, the current study measured SED locally at 17 locations within the central 8° of the binocular visual field. The eccentricities (radius) chosen for this, “binocular perimetry”, study were 0° (fovea), 2° and 4°. At each eccentricity, eight concentric locations (polar angle: 0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, 180°, 225°, 270°, and 315°) were tested. The outcome, an SED map, sets up comparison between local SED and other visual functions [monocular contrast threshold, binocular disparity threshold, reaction time to detect depth, the dynamics of binocular rivalry and motor eye dominance]. Our analysis shows that an observer’s SED varies gradually across the binocular visual field both in its sign and magnitude. The strong eye channel revealed in the SED measurement does not always have a lower monocular contrast threshold, and does not need to be the motor dominant eye. There exists significant correlation between SED and binocular disparity threshold, and between SED and the response time to detect depth of a random-dot stereogram. A significant correlation is also found between SED and the eye that predominates when viewing an extended duration binocular rivalry stimulus. While it is difficult to attribute casual factors based on correlation analyses, these observations agree with the notion that an imbalance of interocular inhibition, which is largely revealed as SED, is a significant factor impeding binocular visual perception.     

Effects of Ocular Dominance and Visual Input on Body Sway

Purpose

To clarify the role of ocular dominance and to investigate the importance of visual acuity and restriction of the visual field for the visual stabilization of posture.

Methods

The subjects were 31 healthy volunteers ranging in age from 18 to 27 years. The sway of the center of gravity in the upright position was measured by a stabilometer. The tracings of the center of gravity obtained with the stabilometer while the subjects were standing erect for 1?min under several conditions were analyzed. The root mean square (RMS) area of body sway in each case was determined by analysis of the data. The main visual conditions were as follows: with the eyes open; with fixation of the dominant eye or of the nondominant eye; with a binocular or a monocular visual field of 10°; with a binocular or a monocular visual field of 10° and a visual acuity of 0.01; and with the eyes closed.

Results

The main results were as follows: (1) The RMS area while fixation of the dominant eye was maintained was significantly greater than that with fixation of the nondominant eye, and (2) the RMS area showed marked differences between binocular and monocular visual fields restricted to 10°. In monocular fixation of the same visual field, the RMS area increased significantly compared with in binocular fixation.

Conclusions

Binocular vision with the field restricted to 10° offered the greatest contribution to postural stability, but the nondominant eye was more concerned with postural control than the dominant eye.?Jpn J Ophthalmol 2007;51:375–378 © Japanese Ophthalmological Society 2007

     

Binocular optical instruments and binocular vision

Many visual optical instruments provide the facility for binocular viewing instead of restricting viewing to monocular vision. The main advantage of binocular viewing is the reduction in fatigue likely to occur if one eye is occluded while viewing monocular instruments. This is particularly important for prolonged viewing periods. Also, binocular systems have the potential for stereopsis with an increase in stereoscopic acuity in some cases; although not all binocular instruments provide stereoscopic imagery. In spite of these advantages, some observers have difficulty with binocular instruments. The problems arise when there are alignment errors in the optical components leading to displaced or rotated images. There may also be a conflict between the amount of convergence of the binocular tube axes and the AC/A ratio of the observer, and the amount of accommodation required under those viewing conditions. These factors are discussed in detail along with a case example.