Quantifying sensory eye dominance in the normal visual system: a new technique and insights into variation across traditional tests.

PURPOSE Although eye dominance assessment is used to assist clinical decision-making, current understanding is limited by inconsistencies across the range of available tests. A new psychophysical test of sensory eye dominance has been developed that objectively measures the relative contribution of each eye to a fused suprathreshold binocular percept. METHODS Six standard tests and the newly developed test were used to measure motor and sensory dominance in a group of 44 binocularly normal individuals (mean age, 29.5 ± 9.10 years). The new test required observers to perform a motion coherence task under dichoptic viewing conditions, wherein a population of moving, luminance-defined signal (coherently moving) and noise (randomly moving) dots were presented separately to each eye. The observers judged the motion direction of the signal dots. Motion coherence thresholds were measured by varying the ratio of signal-to-noise dots, in a staircase procedure. RESULTS The new dichoptic motion coherence threshold test revealed a clear bimodal distribution of sensory eye dominance strength, wherein the majority of the participants (61%) showed weak dominance, but a significant minority (39%) showed strong dominance. Subsequent analysis revealed that the strong-dominance group showed greater consistency across the range of traditional eye dominance tests used. CONCLUSIONS This new quantitative dichoptic motion coherence threshold technique suggests that there are two separate sensory eye dominance strength distributions among observers with normal binocular vision: weak and strong eye dominance. This finding may provide a basis for clinical decision-making by indicating whether eye dominance is likely to be an important consideration in a particular patient.

[1]  R. Blake,et al.  Visual motion, binocular correspondence and binocular rivalry , 1985, Biological Cybernetics.

[2]  Tim S. Meese,et al.  Contrast masking in strabismic amblyopia: Attenuation, noise, interocular suppression and binocular summation , 2008, Vision Research.

[3]  Frederik Barkhof,et al.  The functional basis of ocular dominance: functional MRI (fMRI) findings , 1996, Neuroscience Letters.

[4]  Hiroshi Uozato,et al.  Effects of Dominant and Nondominant Eyes in Binocular Rivalry , 2004, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[5]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate in behavior genetics research , 2001, Behavioural Brain Research.

[6]  Robert B. Mandell,et al.  Contact Lens Practice , 2002 .

[7]  G. L. Walls A theory of ocular dominance. , 1951, A.M.A. archives of ophthalmology.

[8]  N. Loewen Ophthalmic Surgical Procedures. , 2009, Journal of glaucoma.

[9]  Behzad Mansouri,et al.  Binocular summation of contrast remains intact in strabismic amblyopia. , 2007, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[10]  Ravi S. Menon,et al.  Brief visual stimulation allows mapping of ocular dominance in visual cortex using fMRI , 2001, Human brain mapping.

[11]  P Erickson,et al.  Patterns of Binocular Suppression and Accommodation in Monovision , 1988, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[12]  B. Mansouri,et al.  Measurement of suprathreshold binocular interactions in amblyopia , 2008, Vision Research.

[13]  M. Georgeson,et al.  Binocular interaction: contrast matching and contrast discrimination are predicted by the same model. , 2007, Spatial vision.

[14]  Behzad Mansouri,et al.  Integration, segregation, and binocular combination. , 2005, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[15]  G. E. Berner,et al.  Relation of ocular dominance, handedness, and the controlling eye in binocular vision. , 1953, A M A Archives of Ophthalmology.

[16]  T. Poggio,et al.  Cognitive neuroscience: Neural mechanisms for the recognition of biological movements , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[17]  R. Hess,et al.  Low spatial frequencies are suppressively masked across spatial scale, orientation, field position, and eye of origin. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[18]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Binocular Rivalry and Motion Perception , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[19]  Zeevi Dvir,et al.  Ocular dominance and balance performance in healthy adults. , 2010, Gait & posture.

[20]  A. Rosenbaum,et al.  The effect of ocular dominance on the performance of professional baseball players. , 1998, Ophthalmology.

[21]  T. Meese,et al.  Binocular contrast interactions: Dichoptic masking is not a single process , 2007, Vision Research.

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

[23]  F. A. Miles Binocular Vision and Stereopsis by Ian P. Howard and Brian J. Rogers, Oxford University Press, 1995. £90.00 (736 pages) ISBN 0 19 508476 4. , 1996, Trends in Neurosciences.

[24]  M. Georgeson,et al.  Binocular contrast vision at and above threshold. , 2006, Journal of vision.

[25]  Ching-Yu Cheng,et al.  Association of ocular dominance and anisometropic myopia. , 2004, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[26]  Gordon E. Legge,et al.  Binocular contrast summation—II. Quadratic summation , 1984, Vision Research.

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

[28]  M. Kapadia,et al.  Binocular function and patient satisfaction after monovision induced by myopic photorefractive keratectomy. , 1999, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[29]  T. Meese,et al.  Psychophysical evidence for two routes to suppression before binocular summation of signals in human vision , 2007, Neuroscience.

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

[31]  W. Newsome,et al.  A selective impairment of motion perception following lesions of the middle temporal visual area (MT) , 1988, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[32]  M. Annett The Binomial Distribution of Right, Mixed and Left Handedness , 1967, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[33]  Jack Alexander,et al.  Sensory ocular dominance based on resolution acuity, contrast sensitivity and alignment sensitivity , 2009, Clinical & experimental optometry.

[34]  K. Heilman,et al.  Effects of monocular viewing and eye dominance on spatial attention. , 2002, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[35]  Michael Bach,et al.  Ocular prevalence versus ocular dominance , 2003, Vision Research.

[36]  George M. Gould,et al.  A METHOD OF DETERMINING OCULAR DOMINANCE , 1910 .

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

[38]  B. Mansouri,et al.  Binocular influences on global motion processing in the human visual system , 2007, Vision Research.

[39]  Hiroshi Uozato,et al.  Ocular dominance and patient satisfaction after monovision induced by intraocular lens implantation , 2004, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[40]  Jude F. Mitchell,et al.  Object-based attention determines dominance in binocular rivalry , 2004, Nature.

[41]  P. Romano Ocular dominance tests before cataract surgery, especially monocular or unilateral. , 1988, Ophthalmology.