Ocular dominance and patient satisfaction after monovision induced by intraocular lens implantation

PURPOSE: To elucidate the relationship between ocular dominance and patient satisfaction with monovision induced by intraocular lens implantation. SETTING: Eye Clinic, Kitasato University School of Medicine Hospital, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan. METHODS: The durations of exclusive visibility of dominant- and nondominant-eye targets were measured in 16 patients with successful monovision and 4 patients with unsuccessful monovision to determine the characteristics of ocular dominance. The dominant eye was determined using the hole-in-card test (sighting dominance). The contrast of target in nondominant eye was fixed at 100%; the contrast of target in the dominant eye varied (ie, 100% to 80% to 60% to 40% to 20%) using rectangular gratings of 2 cycles per degree that were 4 degrees in size. RESULTS: In the successful monovision group, the reversal thresholds (ie, exclusive visibility of the nondominant eye crosses over that of the dominant eye) were displayed only at low decreasing contrast (80% and 60%). However, in the unsuccessful monovision group, the reversal thresholds were at high decreasing contrast (20%) or not at all. The reversal thresholds in patients with unsuccessful monovision were at a significantly lower contrast than in patients with successful monovision (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Success and patient satisfaction in monovision patients were significantly influenced by the magnitude of ocular dominance. The balance technique seems to be a good method to evaluate the quantity of ocular dominance and prospectively evaluate the monovision technique.     

Quantitative measurement of ocular dominance using binocular rivalry induced by retinometers

PURPOSE: To develop a new method using binocular rivalry and retinometers to quantitatively examine ocular dominance and to investigate the magnitude of ocular dominance in cataract patients preoperatively and postoperatively. SETTING: Eye Clinic, Kitasato University School of Medicine Hospital, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan. METHODS: The duration of exclusive visibility of the dominant and nondominant eye target in binocular rivalry were measured in 60 healthy volunteers (study 1) and preoperatively and postoperatively in 10 cataract patients (study 2). Rivalry targets were presented directly to the retina of each eye using 2 retinometers. Subjects reported the exclusive visibility of 1 eye target, and the total duration of exclusive visibility for each eye in dominant and nondominant eye trials was evaluated. RESULTS: In study 1, the magnitude of ocular dominance was quantitatively assessed with 4 grades based on differences in total duration of exclusive visibility between dominant and nondominant eyes. In study 2, magnitude of ocular dominance could be evaluated in all cataract patients regardless of refractive and cataract conditions. Magnitude of ocular dominance displayed significant correlations between preoperative and postoperative conditions (simple regression, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ocular dominance can be quantitatively evaluated using this new method based on binocular rivalry and retinometers, particularly in cataract patients. Magnitude of ocular dominance may indicate preoperatively whether a patient with cataracts will have sufficient ocular dominance to adjust to monovision correction.     

Exogenous attention and endogenous attention influence initial dominance in binocular rivalry

We investigated the influence of exogenous and endogenous attention on initial selection in binocular rivalry. Experiment 1 used superimposed +/-45 degrees gratings viewed dioptically for 3s, followed by a brief contrast increment in one of the gratings to direct exogenous attention to that grating. After a brief blank period, dichoptic stimuli were presented for various durations (100-700 ms). Exogenous attention strongly influenced which stimulus was initially dominant in binocular rivalry, replicating an earlier report (Mitchell, Stoner, & Reynolds. (2004). Object-based attention determines dominance in binocular rivalry. Nature, 429, 410-413). In Experiment 2, endogenous attention was manipulated by having participants track one of two oblique gratings both of which independently and continuously changed their orientations and spatial frequencies during a 5s period. The initially dominant grating was most often the one whose orientation matched the grating correctly tracked using endogenous attention. In Experiment 3, we measured the strength of both exogenous and endogenous attention by varying the contrast of one of two rival gratings when attention was previously directed to that grating. The contrast of the attended grating had to be reduced by an amount in the neighborhood of 0.3 log-units, to counteract attention's boost to initial dominance. Evidently both exogenous and endogenous attention can influence initial dominance of binocular rivalry, effectively boosting the stimulus strength of the attended rival stimulus.     

Effects of ocular dominance on binocular summation after monocular reading adds

PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between ocular dominance and binocular summation with monocular reading adds. SETTING: Department of Orthoptics and Visual Science, School of Allied Health Sciences, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan. METHODS: Contrast sensitivities were measured by having subjects view contrast charts at spatial frequencies of 1.5, 3.0, 6.0, 12.0, and 18.0 cycles per degree after the addition of positive spherical lenses that ranged from +1.0 to +3.0 diopters (D). Through the use of a balance technique, the test group was quantitatively divided into 12 weak and 8 strong ocular dominance subjects on the basis of binocular rivalry. In study 1, binocular contrast sensitivity was measured in the weak and strong ocular dominances by adding a positive spherical lens in front of 1 eye, whereas the other eye was fixed at a corrected distance. RESULTS: In study 1, the binocular summation was observed only after adding positive spherical lenses in the nondominant eye. The differences in binocular contrast sensitivity that occurred after adding a positive spherical lens in the dominant eye versus that seen in the nondominant eye were statistically significant in the strong ocular dominance subjects who had +1.5 D and +2.0 D defocuses (P<.05; analysis of variance). CONCLUSIONS: Binocular summation was effectively maintained with reading adds in the nondominant eye and was significantly influenced by the magnitude of ocular dominance. Evaluating binocular summation after monocular reading adds seems to be a good method to evaluate adaptability to monovision.     

Is the binocular rivalry mechanism tritanopic?

Binocular rivalry for a series of colored targets was measured in three trichromats and two red-green dichromats by cumulating those times when only one target or the other was perceived (exclusive visibility time). Targets were black and colored 3 c/deg square-wave gratings, 1° in diameter. For trichromats, exclusive visibility time increased as a function of color difference between the targets, but for dichromats there was no effect of color on binocular rivalry. Taken together, these data indicate that the binocular rivalry mechanism is tritanopic: it is responsive to color signals only from the medium- and long-wave-sensitive cones.     

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.     

Contrast Rivalry Paradigm Reveals Suppression of Monocular Input in Keratoconus

PurposeKeratoconus results in image quality loss in one or both eyes due to increased corneal distortion. This study quantified the depth of monocular suppression in keratoconus due to this image quality loss using a binocular contrast rivalry paradigm.MethodsContrast rivalry was induced in 50 keratoconic cases (11–31 years) and 12 age-matched controls by dichoptically viewing orthogonal Gabor patches of 5 cycles per degree (cpd) and 1.5 cpd spatial frequency for 120 seconds with their best-corrected spectacles and rigid gas permeable (RGP) contact lenses. The dwell time on each eye''s percept was determined at baseline (100% contrast bilaterally) and at varying contrast levels (80–2.5%) in the stronger eye of keratoconus or dominant eye of controls. The contrast reduction needed in the stronger eye to balance dwell times on both eyes was considered a measure of suppression depth.ResultsAt baseline with 5 cpd stimuli and spectacle correction, the rivalry switches were less frequent and biased toward the stronger eye of cases, all relative to controls (P < 0.001). The contrast balance point of cases (20.51% [10.7–61%]) was lower than the controls (99.80% [98.6–100%]; P < 0.001) and strongly associated with the overall and interocular difference in disease severity (r = 0.83, P < 0.001). The suppression depth reduced for 1.5 cpd (70.8% [21.7–94%]), relative to 5 cpd stimulus (P < 0.001) and with contact lenses (80.1% [49.5–91.7%]), relative to spectacles (P < 0.001).ConclusionsThe eye with lesser disease severity dominates binocular viewing in keratoconus. The suppression depth of the poorer eye depends on the extent of bilateral disease severity, optical correction modality, and the target spatial frequency.     

Binocular motion rivalry in macaque monkeys: eye dominance and tracking eye movements

When the two eyes are exposed to markedly different patterns, perception becomes unstable, falling into oscillations, so that the image of one eye is seen first and then that from the other. With large stimuli the alternation is piecemeal, whilst when small stimuli are used the whole pattern alternates in unison. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a reliable, objective indicator of the perceptual state during binocular rivalry could be developed in the nonhuman primate. Monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were trained to discriminate direction of motion when presented with vertically drifting gratings moving in opposite directions in the two eyes. A high correlation was found between the direction of the slow phase of the optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) elicited by the drifting gratings during rivalry and the direction of motion reported by the monkey even though the gain of the OKN was reduced during rivalry, and the latency was longer. Behavioral eye dominance during rivalry varied significantly over time, between individuals and as a function of interocular contrast differences. Since the direction of tracking eye movements can be used to reliably monitor perceptual state during binocular motion rivalry, the opportunity exists in nonhuman primates to study the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying motion perception during the perceptually ambiguous condition of binocular rivalry.     

Configuration saliency revealed in short duration binocular rivalry.

Supra-threshold spatial integration was studied by testing the saliency of multi-Gabor element configurations in short duration binocular rivalry (dichoptic masking) conditions. Dichoptic presentations allow for a competition between spatially overlapping supra-threshold stimuli that involve non-overlapping monocular receptive fields in the first stage of visual filtering. Different spatial configurations of Gabor patches (sigma = lambda = 0.12 degree) were presented to one eye (target) together with a bandpass noise presented to the other eye (mask). After a short rivalry period (120 ms) in which a dominance of one eye was established, a probe (a randomly positioned small rectangle of reduced contrast in the target) was presented for additional detection period (80 ms). Probe detection performance was measured (two-alternative-forced choice paradigm (2AFC) by finding the mask contrast leading to 79% correct response. Results show that configuration saliency is consistently expressed as dominance in short-duration binocular rivalry, with similar results obtained for longer durations (200 ms and continuous presentations). We find that textures of high-contrast randomly oriented patches are more dominant than uniform textures where the effect decreases and eventually reverses with decreasing of contrast. For supra-threshold contours, however, we find that smooth collinear contours are more dominant than 'jagged' ones, regardless of phase and contrast. These findings suggest principles underlying early lateral integration mechanisms based on contrast dependent inhibitory and excitatory connections. This mechanism could be based on iso-orientation surround (2D) inhibition and collinear (1D) facilitation, with inhibition being more effective at high contrasts.     

Sighting dominance in patients with macular disease

PURPOSE: To study sighting dominance by comparing macular disease patients undergoing surgical treatment with controls. METHODS: We studied visual acuity and sighting dominance in 92 macular disease patients, 27 of whom were assessed for both outcomes. We also studied visual acuity and sighting dominance in 412 controls. Sighting dominance was evaluated using the hole-in-card test. RESULTS: Among the controls, 70% showed right sighting dominance, and 30%, left sighting dominance. On the other hand, in patients with macular disease, right sighting dominance was demonstrated in 51%, and left in 49%; that is, 24% showed sighting dominance of the affected eye and 76%, of the fellow eye. During follow-up, sighting dominance of three of the 27 macular disease patients shifted from the affected eye to the fellow eye, which showed improvement in visual acuity. CONCLUSION: This study raises the possibility of sighting dominance shifting in patients with macular disease. There were differences among cases in the timing of the shift in sighting dominance, indicating that visual acuity may not be the only factor influencing sighting dominance. Further study is needed to confirm the factors contributing to sighting dominance.     

Spatial zones of binocular rivalry in central and peripheral vision.

This paper presents results from psychophysical experiments on human binocular rivalry in central and peripheral vision. Results show that the incidence of periods of exclusive visibility of a given eye's rival target increased with decreasing target size, and for a given sized target exclusive visibility increased with retinal eccentricity. Control measures confirmed that these results were not attributable solely to reduced peripheral acuity, to Troxler's effect, or to spatial frequency. We computed the minimum-sized stimulus that would lead to a criterion level of exclusive visibility of one or the other eye; this we term the spatial zone of binocular rivalry. The change in estimated size of spatial zones of rivalry with eccentricity compares favorably with estimates of human cortical magnification. We propose a model that assumes concentrically organized zones of rivalry. These zones do not function independently, but instead exhibit a high degree of mutual excitatory cooperativity. The model has multiple solutions for the foveal zone size, but the best fits predict a diameter of 5.3 or 7.3 min of visual angle; these values dovetail nicely with our empirical estimates of the foveal zone size.     

Ocular dominance testing

Clinicians typically apply the distance correction to the dominant sighting eye when fitting monovision contact lenses on presbyopic patients. This study investigates if this form of dominance testing correlates with a second type of dominance testing, the eye that will accept the least plus power when viewing a distance target binocularly. The plus lens test more closely simulates the condition under which the patient will be using the monovision correction. The theory is that the nondominant eye will accept more plus to blur than the dominant eye. Our study population consisted of subjects from the ages of 10 to 72 years. Fifty (64%) of the 78 subjects preferred the same eye by the plus lens testing as they did for sighting dominance. Seven subjects (9%) showed the opposite eye dominance with the plus lens test, and 21 subjects (27%) demonstrated no preference in the plus lens testing. The results could indicate that same-eye dominance on both tests may enhance the changes of a successful monovision adaptation.     

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.     

Center-surround interactions in visual motion processing during binocular rivalry

When each eye is confronted with a dissimilar stimulus, the percept will generally alternate between the two. This phenomenon is known as binocular rivalry. Although binocular rivalry occurs at locations where targets overlap spatially, the area surrounding rivalrous targets can modulate their dominance. Here we show that during binocular rivalry of oppositely moving gratings, a surrounding grating moving in the same direction as one of the two leads to increased dominance of the opposite direction of motion in the center. This increased dominance of the opposite direction in the center was observed irrespective of the eye to which the surround was presented. Inspection of the results for different conditions reveals that the preference for the opposite direction of motion cannot be explained by a single mechanism operating beyond binocular fusion. We therefore suggest that this phenomenon is the outcome of center-surround interactions at multiple levels along the pathway of visual motion processing.     

Perceptual dominance during binocular rivalry is prolonged by a dynamic surround

We examined whether dynamic stimulation that surrounds a rival target influences perceptual alternations during binocular rivalry. We presented a rival target surrounded by dynamic random-dot patterns to both eyes, and measured dominance durations for each eye’s rival target. We found that rival target dominance durations were longer when surrounds were dynamic than when they were static or absent. Additionally, prolonged dominance durations were more apparent when the dynamic surround was alternately presented between the two eyes than when it was presented simultaneously to both eyes. These results indicate that dynamic stimulation that surrounds a rival target plays a role in maintaining the current perceptual state, and causes less perceptual alternations during binocular rivalry. Our findings suggest that dynamic signals on the retina may suppress rivalry, and thus provide useful information for stabilizing perceptions in daily life.     

Grouping visual features during binocular rivalry

During binocular rivalry, portions of one eye's view may be perceptually dominant while other portions are suppressed; at any given moment, overall dominance often resembles a patchwork mixture of the two eyes' views. This study investigates the potency of two Gestalt grouping cues--good continuation and common fate--to promote synchronous fluctuations in dominance of two, spatially separated rival targets. Two grating patches were presented to the left eye paired dichoptically with random-dot patches presented to corresponding right eye locations. The orientations of the two gratings were either collinear, parallel or orthogonal. Gratings underwent contrast modulations that were either correlated (identical contrast changes) or uncorrelated (independent contrast changes). Over 60 s trials, observers pressed one key when the left grating predominated, another when the right grating predominated and both keys when both were concurrently visible. Correlated contrast modulation promoted joint grating predominance relative to the uncorrelated conditions, an effect strongest for collinear gratings. Joint predominance depended strongly on the angular separation between gratings and the temporal phase-lag in contrast modulations. These findings may reflect neural interactions subserved by lateral connections between cortical hypercolumns.     

Sensory ocular dominance based on resolution acuity,contrast sensitivity and alignment sensitivity

Background: Ocular dominance is the superiority or preference of one eye over the other in terms of sighting, sensory function (for example, visual acuity) or persistence in binocular rivalry. There is poor agreement between sighting and sensory dominance and findings are equivocal on the possible neural basis of ocular dominance and its significance. Thus, there are questions on the meaning and importance of ocular dominance. Despite the lack of clarity in this area, ocular dominance is used clinically, for example, as the basis for decisions on monovision in contact lens wear and on treatment of anomalies of binocular vision. Methods: Sighting dominance and three types of sensory dominance (based on resolution acuity, contrast sensitivity and alignment sensitivity) were compared within individuals, with the main aim of determining whether sensory dominance is consistent across spatial visual functions. Results: Our findings indicate that each type of sensory dominance is insignificant in most individuals and in agreement with previous work that sensory and sighting dominance do not generally agree. Conclusion: These results demonstrate not only that different types of ocular dominance are not in agreement but also that in the normal visual system sensory dominance as measured here is insignificant in most individuals with normal vision.     

Staying focused: a functional account of perceptual suppression during binocular rivalry

Presenting different images to either eye can induce perceptual switching, with alternating disappearances of each image--a phenomenon called binocular rivalry. We believe that disappearances during binocular rivalry can be driven by a process that facilitates visibility near the point of fixation. As the point of fixation is tied neither to a particular stimulus nor to a specific eye, indifference to both would be an essential characteristic for the process we envisage. Many factors that influence disappearances during binocular rivalry scale with distance in depth from fixation. Of these, here we use blur. We break the links between this cue and both eye of origin and stimulus type. We find that perceptual dominance can track a better focused image as it is swapped between the eyes and that perceptual switches can be driven by alternating the focus of images fixed in each eye. This implies that, as a determinant of suppression selectivity, blur is functionally independent from both eye of origin and stimulus type. Our data and theoretical account suggest that binocular rivalry is not an irrelevant laboratory curiosity but, rather, that it is a product of a functional adaptation that promotes visibility in cluttered environments.     

Eye preference within the context of binocular functions

Background Eye preference refers to an asymmetric use of the two eyes, but it does not imply a unitary asymmetry between the eyes. Many different methods are used to assess eye preference, including eyedness questionnaires and sighting tasks that require binocular and monocular alignment of a target through a hole in the middle of a card or funnel. The results of these coarse accounts of eye preference are useful as a first screening, but do not allow for graded quantification of the manifested asymmetry in binocular vision. Moreover, they often concern only a rather selective range of binocular functions. The aim of the present study was to further differentiate eye preference within the context of other binocular functions as measured in standard optometric tests, and to validate their relation to questionnaire data of eyedness.Methods Conventional accounts of eye preference (German adaptation of Corens questionnaire and a sighting task) were compared with various optometric tests of binocular function within a sample of 103 subjects. Examination included visual acuity and accommodation in each eye, stereoscopic prevalence, suppression due to binocular rivalry, fixation disparity (Mallett test).Results Sighting dominance was leftward in 32% and rightward in 68% of the cases and was highly correlated (Kendalls _b=0.70) with eyedness. Further significant associations were restricted to stereoscopic prevalence which correlated with sighting dominance (_b=0.55), eyedness (_b=0.50), and rivalry dominance (_b=0.28).Conclusion Eye preference seems to be essentially reflected by eyedness, sighting dominance, and stereoscopic prevalence, but largely unrelated to fixation disparity, accommodation, and visual acuity.     

Resolution of binocular rivalry: Perceptual misbinding of color

Is neural binding of color and form required for perception of a unified colored object? Individual cells selectively tuned to both color and orientation are proposed to moot the binding problem. This study reveals perceptual misbinding of color, thereby revealing separate neural representations of color and form followed by a subsequent binding process. Low luminance-contrast, rivalrous chromatic gratings were presented dichoptically. Each grating had alternating chromatic and gray stripes (e.g., red/gray in the left eye, green/gray in the right eye). Observers viewed the two rivalrous, 2 cpd gratings for 1 min. The duration of exclusive visibility was measured for four percepts: left-eye stimulus, right-eye stimulus, fusion of the two colors, or a two-color grating (e.g. a red/green grating). The percept of a two-color grating (misbinding) was observed with Michelson luminance contrast in the grating up to 20%. In general, for a given level of luminance contrast either misbinding (low luminance contrast) or color mixture (high luminance contrast) was observed, but not both of them. The perceived two-color gratings show that two rivalrous chromaticities are both represented neurally when color and form are combined to give a unified percept. "Resolution" of competing chromatic signals from the two eyes is not restricted to color dominance and color mixture. The transition from misbinding to color mixture by increasing luminance contrast shows that luminance edges have an important role in correct localization of color.