Abstract
Classical sighting or sensory tests are used in clinical practice to identify the dominant eye. Several psychophysical tests were recently proposed to quantify the magnitude of dominance but whether their results agree was never investigated. We addressed this question for the two most common psychophysical tests: The perceived-phase test, which measures the cyclopean appearance of dichoptically presented sinusoids of different phase, and the coherence-threshold test, which measures interocular differences in motion perception when signal and noise stimuli are presented dichoptically. We also checked for agreement with three classical tests (Worth 4-dot, Randot suppression, and Bagolini lenses). Psychophysical tests were administered in their conventional form and also using more dependable psychophysical methods. The results showed weak correlations between psychophysical measures of strength of dominance with inconsistent identification of the dominant eye across tests: Agreement on left-eye dominance, right-eye dominance, or nondominance by both tests occurred only for 11 of 40 observers (27.5%); the remaining 29 observers were classified differently by each test, including 14 cases (35%) of opposite classification (left-eye dominance by one test and right-eye dominance by the other). Classical tests also yielded conflicting results that did not agree well with classification based on psychophysical tests. The results are discussed in the context of determination of ocular dominance for clinical decisions.
Highlights
Ocular dominance has received attention in vision science for decades, but its determination started to be relevant for monovision contact lens correction of presbyopia, and it may be relevant for fitting peripheral prisms for field expansion in homonymous hemianopia (Ross, Bowers, & Peli, 2012)
It is clear that acuity tests define dominance as better monocular vision. These difficulties explain the interest in distinguishing ocular dominance from ocular preference (Laby & Kirschen, 2011; Pointer, 2010b) and the shift of perspective from defining the dominant eye as that used in monocular tasks to defining dominance according to each eye’s contribution to cooperative–competitive processes elicited during binocular vision (Han, He, & Ooi, 2018; Johansson, Seimyr, & Pansell, 2015; Mapp, Ono, & Barbeito, 2003)
Ocular dominance has been found to be insignificant by classical sensory tests in normally sighted, nonpresbyopic individuals (Suttle et al, 2009), whereas it is relatively prevalent in presbyopes (Lopes-Ferreira et al, 2013), who may have developed a form of spontaneous monovision to cope with their symptoms
Summary
Ocular dominance has received attention in vision science for decades, but its determination started to be relevant for monovision contact lens correction of presbyopia (where one eye is corrected for distance viewing and the other is corrected for near vision; Evans, 2007), and it may be relevant for fitting peripheral prisms for field expansion in homonymous hemianopia (Ross, Bowers, & Peli, 2012). Factor analysis identified three groups of tests regarded as measuring what they called sighting, sensory, or acuity dominance (see Porac & Coren, 1976; for a similar study, see Gronwall & Sampson, 1971). It is still unclear whether the tests in each group isolate different aspects of a multifaceted construct or, rather, they measure ocular dominance in combination with procedural characteristics of the task that each test poses (see Pointer, 2010a, 2012). It is clear that acuity tests define dominance as better monocular vision. See Haun and Peli (2014) for some practical implications of different monocular contributions to vision
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
