Disparity-driven vs blur-driven models of accommodation and convergence in binocular vision and intermittent strabismus

Background. Current models of concomitant, intermittent strabismus, heterophoria, convergence and accommodation anomalies are either theoretically complex or incomplete. We propose an alternative and more practical way to conceptualize clinical patterns. Methods. In each of three hypothetical scenarios (normal; high AC/A and low CA/C ratios; low AC/A and high CA/C ratios) there can be a disparity-biased or blur-biased “style”, despite identical ratios. We calculated a disparity bias index (DBI) to reflect these biases. We suggest how clinical patterns fit these scenarios and provide early objective data from small illustrative clinical groups. Results. Normal adults and children showed disparity bias (adult DBI 0.43 (95%CI 0.50-0.36), child DBI 0.20 (95%CI 0.31-0.07) (p=0.001). Accommodative esotropes showed less disparity-bias (DBI 0.03). In the high AC/A and low CA/C scenario, early presbyopes had mean DBI of 0.17 (95%CI 0.28-0.06), compared to DBI of -0.31 in convergence excess esotropes. In the low AC/A and high CA/C scenario near exotropes had mean DBI of 0.27, while we predict that non-strabismic, non-amblyopic hyperopes with good vision without spectacles will show lower DBIs. Disparity bias ranged between 1.25 and -1.67. Conclusions. Establishing disparity or blur bias, together with knowing whether convergence to target demand exceeds accommodation or vice versa explains clinical patterns more effectively than AC/A and CA/C ratios alone. Excessive bias or inflexibility in near-cue use increases risk of clinical problems. We suggest clinicians look carefully at details of accommodation and convergence changes induced by lenses, dissociation and prisms and use these to plan treatment in relation to the model.