Monovision Correction Preference and Eye Dominance Measurements

Purpose To propose new methods for eye selection in presbyopic monovision corrections. Methods Twenty subjects with presbyopia performed two standard methods of binary eye dominance identification (sensory with +1.50 diopters [D ]and +0.50 D and sighting with “hole-in-the-card”) and two psychophysical methods of perceived visual quality: (1) the Preferential test, 26 natural images were judged with the near addition in one eye or in the other in a 2-interval forced-choice task, and the Eye Dominance Strength (EDS) defined as the proportion of trials where one monovision is preferred over the other; (2) the Multifocal Acceptance Score (MAS-2EV) test, the perceived quality of a natural images set (for 2 luminance levels and distances) was scored and EDS defined as the score difference between monovision in one eye or the other. Left-eye and right-eye dominance are indicated with negative and positive values, respectively. Tests were performed using a Simultaneous Vision Simulator, which allows rapid changes between corrections. Results Standard sensory and sighting dominances matched in only 55% of subjects. The Preferential EDS (ranging from −0.7 to +0.9) and MAS-2EV EDS (ranging from −0.6 to +0.4) were highly correlated. Selecting the eye for far in monovision with the MAS-2EV, sensory, or sighting tests would have resulted in 79%, 64%, and 43% success considering the Preferential test as the gold standard. Conclusions Tests based on perceptual preference allow selection of the preferred monovision correction and measurement of dominance strength. Translational Relevance The binocular visual simulator allows efficient implementation of eye preference tests for monovision in clinical use.

[1]  P. Artal,et al.  Adaptive optics visual simulators: a review of recent optical designs and applications [Invited] , 2022, Biomedical optics express.

[2]  Derek Nankivil,et al.  Multifocal contact lens vision simulated with a clinical binocular simulator. , 2022, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

[3]  M. T. Tusscher,et al.  Not dominance but the loss of binocularity determines the success of monovision , 2021, Journal of Clinical Research and Ophthalmology.

[4]  S. Marcos,et al.  Multifocal acceptance score to evaluate vision: MAS-2EV , 2021, Scientific Reports.

[5]  N. Port,et al.  Stereotest Comparison: Efficacy, Reliability, and Variability of a New Glasses-Free Stereotest , 2020, Translational vision science & technology.

[6]  E. Peli,et al.  Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently , 2019, i-Perception.

[7]  Carlos Dorronsoro,et al.  Tunable lenses: dynamic characterization and fine-tuned control for high-speed applications. , 2019, Optics express.

[8]  Carlos Dorronsoro,et al.  Vision with different presbyopia corrections simulated with a portable binocular visual simulator , 2016, PloS one.

[9]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Individual differences in sensory eye dominance reflected in the dynamics of binocular rivalry , 2017, Vision Research.

[10]  Karen Squier Ocular sensory dominance and viewing distance , 2017 .

[11]  Susana Marcos,et al.  Portable simultaneous vision device to simulate multifocal corrections , 2016 .

[12]  Geunyoung Yoon,et al.  The role of sensory ocular dominance on through-focus visual performance in monovision presbyopia corrections. , 2015, Journal of vision.

[13]  Susana Marcos,et al.  Adaptation to interocular differences in blur. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[14]  Alex R. Bowers,et al.  Peripheral Prism Glasses: Effects of Dominance, Suppression, and Background , 2012, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[15]  R. Blake,et al.  A new interocular suppression technique for measuring sensory eye dominance. , 2010, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[16]  Javier Vazquez-Corral,et al.  Color Constancy Algorithms: Psychophysical Evaluation on a New Dataset , 2009 .

[17]  Clinical Procedures in Primary Eye Care, 3rd edition , 2008 .

[18]  Bruce J W Evans,et al.  Monovision: a review , 2007, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[19]  Elena Piedrahita,et al.  Ocular dominance diagnosis and its influence in monovision. , 2007, American journal of ophthalmology.

[20]  Hiroshi Ono,et al.  What does the dominant eye dominate? A brief and somewhat contentious review , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[21]  Pablo Artal,et al.  Adaptive optics visual simulator. , 2002, Journal of refractive surgery.

[22]  I. Howard,et al.  Seeing in depth, Vol. 2: Depth perception. , 2002 .

[23]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[24]  S. Jain,et al.  Success of monovision in presbyopes: review of the literature and potential applications to refractive surgery. , 1996, Survey of ophthalmology.

[25]  A. Goode,et al.  Interocular blur suppression and monovision , 1994, Acta ophthalmologica.

[26]  C. Tyler,et al.  Failure of rivalry at low contrast: Evidence of a suprathreshold binocular summation process , 1992, Vision Research.

[27]  M G Harris,et al.  Clinicolegal considerations of monovision. , 1988, Journal of the American Optometric Association.

[28]  Clifton Schor,et al.  Ocular Dominance and the Interocular Suppression of Blur in Monovision , 1987, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[29]  R. Barbeito,et al.  Sighting dominance: An explanation based on the processing of visual direction in tests of sighting dominance , 1981, Vision Research.

[30]  S Coren,et al.  PATTERNS OF OCULAR DOMINANCE* , 1973, American journal of optometry and archives of American Academy of Optometry.

[31]  O. Braddick,et al.  Seeing in Depth , 2008 .