Binocular Ratio Research Articles

Binocular Summation of Visual Acuity at High and Low Contrast in Early Glaucoma.

This study examined the integrity of binocular summation function in patients with mild glaucoma. We found that binocular summation of visual acuity is preserved in these patients, despite their reduced monocular inputs. Binocular summation represents superiority of binocular to monocular performance. In this study we examined the integrity of binocular summation function in patients with early glaucoma who had structural glaucomatous changes but otherwise had no significant interocular acuity asymmetry or other functional deficit detected with standard clinical measures. Participants included 48 patients with early glaucoma according to Hodapp, Anderson, and Parrish 2 (HAP2) criteria (age 65±12y) and 42 healthy controls (age 60±12y), matched for stereoacuity. Visual acuity was assessed binocularly and monocularly at high (95%) and low (25%) contrast using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts at 6m. Binocular acuity summation was evaluated utilizing a binocular ratio (BR). Overall, binocular and monocular visual acuity of the control group was better than that of the glaucoma group for both contrast levels, P =0.001. For the glaucoma group, there was a significant difference between BRs at high and low contrast, 0.01±0.05 and 0.04±0.06 ( P =0.003), respectively. For the control group, the difference between BR at high and low contrast was not statistically significant, 0.00±0.07 and 0.02±0.06 ( P =0.25), respectively. For patients with early glaucoma, binocular summation function for visual acuity was preserved at both contrast levels. This suggests an adaptation of the visual system in early stages of glaucoma that allows for normal binocular summation in the presence of reduced monocular visual input.

Binocularly Asymmetric Crowding in Glaucoma and a Lack of Binocular Summation in Crowding.

PurposeGlaucoma is associated with progressive loss of retinal ganglion cells. Here we investigated the impact of glaucomatous damage on monocular and binocular crowding in parafoveal vision. We also examined the binocular summation of crowding to see if crowding is alleviated under binocular viewing.MethodsThe study design included 40 individuals with glaucoma and 24 age-similar normal cohorts. For each subject, the magnitude of crowding was determined by the extent of crowding zone. Crowding zone measurements were made binocularly in parafoveal vision (i.e., at 2° and 4° retinal eccentricities) visual field. For a subgroup of glaucoma subjects (n = 17), crowding zone was also measured monocularly for each eye.ResultsOur results showed that, compared with normal cohorts, individuals with glaucoma exhibited significantly larger crowding—enlargement of crowding zone (an increase by 21%; P < 0.01). Moreover, we also observed a lack of binocular summation (i.e., a binocular ratio of 1): binocular crowding was determined by the better eye. Hence, our results did not provide evidence supporting binocular summation of crowding in glaucomatous vision.ConclusionsOur findings show that crowding is exacerbated in parafoveal vision in glaucoma and binocularly asymmetric glaucoma seems to induce binocularly asymmetric crowding. Furthermore, the lack of binocular summation for crowding observed in glaucomatous vision combined with the lack of binocular summation reported in a previous study on normal healthy vision support the view that crowding may start in the early stages of visual processing, at least before the process of binocular integration takes place.

Reading with central vision loss: binocular summation and inhibition.

PurposeThere are conflicting reports as to whether there is a binocular advantage or disadvantage when reading with central vision loss. This study examined binocular reading summation in patients with macular degeneration.MethodsSeventy‐one patients with bilateral central vision loss [mean age: 63 (S.D. = 21) years] participated. Reading performances during binocular and monocular viewing with the better eye (i.e., the eye with the best monocular visual acuity) were evaluated using different versions of the Italian MNREAD reading chart (www.precision‐vision.com). Fixation stability and preferred retinal loci (PRLs) were recorded monocularly for each eye. The overall sample was split into inhibition, equality, and summation groups based on the binocular ratio (i.e., binocular/monocular) of the maximum reading speed.Results41% of patients experienced binocular inhibition, 42% summation, and 17% equality. Binocular reading speed of the inhibition group was approximately 30 words per minute slower than those of the equality and summation groups, although the inhibition group had the best visual acuity. These patients generally had monocular PRLs in non‐corresponding locations temporal or nasal to the scotoma, had the largest interocular acuity difference and lacked residual stereopsis. The three groups did not differ in fixational control, contrast sensitivity or critical print size.ConclusionsEqual proportions of patients with central vision loss show binocular reading summation and inhibition. Patients with binocular reading inhibition have poorer reading performance and different clinical characteristics than those with binocular reading summation and equality.

Application of PRVEP Waveform Amplitude Ratio to Evaluate Visual Acuity and Its Forensic Significance.

Objective To research the correlation between the visual acuity ratio and pattern reversal visual evoked potential （PRVEP） P100 waveform amplitude ratio of both eyes. Methods Forty-seven volunteers were selected, and the visual chart visual acuity of both eyes was measured. The visual acuity ratio of the eye with poor vision to the eye with better vision was calculated by five grade notation method. The amplitudes of P100 waveforms of both eyes were recorded respectively by using black-and-white checkerboard PRVEP and chosing 1°, 15' stimulating visual angle, and the ratio of amplitudes between the two eyes was also calculated. SPSS 20.0 software was used to analyze the correlation between the visual acuity ratio and the ratio of P100 waveform amplitudes between the two eyes. Return test and linear regression analysis with the binocular ratio of P100 waveform amplitudes as the independent variable （x） and the binocular visual acuity ratio as the dependent variable （y） were made. Results There was a positive correlation between the binocular visual acuity ratio and the ratio of P100 waveform amplitudes under 15' stimulating visual angle （Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.62, P=0.000）. The fitting linear regression equation was y=0.090 x+0.846 （F=20.954, P=0.000）. There was no significant correlation between the binocular ratio of visual acuity and the binocular ratio of P100 waveform amplitudes under 1° stimulating visual angle （P>0.05）. Results of return test showed that there was no statistical significance in the difference between visual acuity estimated by equation and actual detected visual acuity. Conclusion In forensic appraisal of monocular injury, fitting linear regression equation of binocular visual acuity ratio and the binocular ratio of P100 waveform amplitudes under 15' stimulating visual angle, is helpful for visual acuity level estimation of the injured eye to some extent.

Reading Training with Threshold Stimuli in People with Central Vision Loss

To evaluate the effectiveness of a perceptual learning technique for improving reading performance of patients with central vision loss and to explore whether this learning generalizes to other visual functions. Ten patients with central vision loss were trained binocularly, in four consecutive sessions, with serially presented words printed at each patient's reading acuity limit. Patients read 10 blocks of 100 words in each session. They were encouraged to read the whole word and were discouraged to read letter by letter. Assessment sessions before and after training measured fixation stability, monocular and binocular visual acuity, as well as reading acuity, critical print size, and maximum reading speed with continuous text. Another six patients with central vision loss were included in a test-retest control group and were tested twice, 1 week apart, with no intervention. The average time required to read a block of trials decreased significantly with each training session. After training, continuous text reading improved in terms of reading acuity (p = 0.017) and maximum reading speed (p = 0.01), but critical print size did not change. Binocular acuity improved significantly from an average of 0.54 logMAR before training to 0.44 logMAR after training. Binocular ratio (better eye acuity/binocular acuity) increased from an average of 1.0 before training to 1.17 after training. There was a 62% improvement in fixation stability in the better eye and 58% in the worse eye. There were no changes in the outcome measures for the test-retest control group. The technique described in this article can be used for vision rehabilitation of patients with central vision loss. When training is done with size threshold stimuli, learning generalizes to visual acuity, continuous text reading, and fixation stability.

Maximum reading speed and binocular summation in patients with central vision loss

ObjectiveVisual acuity is a poor predictor of the maximum reading speed of patients with central vision loss. This study examines the effects of binocular summation of acuity on the maximum reading speed of these patients. DesignProspective, observational case series. ParticipantsTwenty patients with central vision loss participated. MethodsMaximum reading speed was measured binocularly using the MNREAD acuity charts. Monocular and binocular acuities were measured with the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Binocular summation was evaluated with a binocular ratio (BR) calculated as the ratio between the acuity of the better eye to binocular acuity. Fixation stability and preferred retinal locus (PRL) distance from the former fovea were evaluated with the MP-1 microperimetre. ResultsSix patients experienced acuity summation (BR > 1.05), 5 experienced acuity inhibition (BR < 0.95), and 9 showed equality (BR = 1 ± 0.05). There were no differences in the mean acuity of the better eye, fixation stability, or PRL distance from the fovea of the 3 groups. Maximum reading speed was significantly slower (p < 0.05) for patients who experienced binocular inhibition (mean 42 ± 27 words/min [wpm], median 40 wpm) than for those who experienced binocular summation (mean 107 ± 39 wpm, median 108 wpm) or equality (mean 111 ± 62 wpm, median 90 wpm). BR correlated with the maximum reading speed for the overall sample (r[18] = 0.49, p = 0.03). BR together with PRL distance from the former fovea in the better eye explained 45% of the variance in maximum reading speed. ConclusionsBinocular summation of acuity rather than visual acuity alone affects maximum reading speed of patients with central vision loss. Patients with binocular inhibition read significantly slower than those with binocular summation or equality. Assessment of binocular summation is important when devising reading rehabilitation techniques.

Binocular interactions in patients with age-related macular degeneration: Acuity summation and rivalry

This study examined two aspects of binocular function in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD): summation/inhibition of visual acuity and rivalry. The performance of 17 patients with AMD was compared with that of 17 elderly controls and 21 young people. Monocular and binocular acuities were measured using a multiple-E optotype test. Binocular ratios, defined as the better-eye acuity divided by the binocular acuity, were calculated. We also measured eye dominance during rivalry (proportion of time the participants reported perceiving the input to each eye) and rivalry rates (number of alternations per minute). The results showed that while overall binocular ratios were similar for the three groups, the frequency distributions of people who experienced inhibition, equality or summation were different for the young and AMD groups. In the rivalry test, patients experienced more piecemeal perception than the elderly and young controls, but time dominance from the better-seeing eye was comparable for the three groups. Rivalry rates decreased with age and further with pathology. Moreover, rivalry time dominance of the worse-seeing eye was negatively correlated with interocular acuity differences for the AMD group.

Binocular contrast summation and inhibition in amblyopia. The influence of the interocular difference on binocular contrast sensitivity.

The monocular contrast sensitivity loss in amblyopia is well documented. We investigated the influence of interocular sensitivity difference on binocular contrast sensitivity in amblyopia. Monocular and binocular contrast sensitivity functions of six amblyopes (three strabismic and three anisometropic) were measured. The monocular contrast sensitivity loss depended on the type of amblyope. Anisometropic amblyopes generally showed high frequency losses. Strabismic amblyopes showed losses at both low and high spatial frequencies. Binocular performance was assessed in terms of binocular ratios (binocular/non-amblyopic). A binocular ratio greater than 1 indicates binocular summation (binocular > monocular) while a ratio less than 1 shows binocular inhibition (binocular < monocular). In all subjects, the binocular ratio depended on the difference between the amblyopic and the non-amblyopic eye. Minimal interocular difference produced binocular summation, the magnitude of which decreased as the difference between the two eyes increased. Further increases in the monocular difference produced binocular inhibition. Anisometropic amblyopes showed a greater degree of binocular summation at low spatial frequencies compared to strabismic amblyopes. Both types of amblyopes showed binocular inhibition at high spatial frequencies. Clinical implications of binocular summation and inhibition in amblyopia are discussed.