Heterophoria, fusional amplitudes and stereoacuity in school aged children

The stability of binocular vision depends on good fusional amplitudes and its measurements provide information about the patient’s ability to cope with a deviation. However, weak correlations between fusional amplitudes and angle of deviation have been reported in the literature. There are no uniform normative values of fusional amplitudes, even though standards for vergence have been established since 1940s. Aims: 1) Determine the prevalence of heterephoria; 2) Determine the relationship between heterophoria, fusional amplitudes and stereoacuity in children.

Effects of age and optical blur on real depth stereoacuity

Stereoscopic depth perception utilizes the disparity cues between the images that fall on the retinae of the two eyes. The purpose of this study was to determine what role aging and optical blur play in stereoscopic disparity sensitivity for real depth stimuli. Forty-six volunteers were tested ranging in age from 15 to 60 years. Crossed and uncrossed disparity thresholds were measured using white light under conditions of best optical correction. The uncrossed disparity thresholds were also measured with optical blur (from +1.0D to +5.0D added to the best correction). Stereothresholds were measured using the Frisby Stereo Test, which utilizes a four-alternative forced-choice staircase procedure. The threshold disparities measured for young adults were frequently lower than 10 arcsec, a value considerably lower than the clinical estimates commonly obtained using Random Dot Stereograms (20 arcsec) or Titmus Fly Test (40 arcsec) tests. Contrary to previous reports, disparity thresholds increased between the ages of 31 and 45 years. This finding should be taken into account in clinical evaluation of visual function of older patients. Optical blur degrades visual acuity and stereoacuity similarly under white-light conditions, indicating that both functions are affected proportionally by optical defocus.

Stereoacuity as an indicator of prism adaptation

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether stereoacuity can be used as an indicator of prism adaptation. In particular, we wanted to know whether the time required for stereoacuity to return to the initial level after viewing through a prism can be used to determine the degree of adaptation. Materials and Methods: Eighteen subjects participated in this study. Stereoacuity and dissociated phoria were determined using the TNO stereotest and the Maddox rod, respectively. Prism vergences were measured using a prism bar. For each participant, prism power equivalent to the blur point of base-in (BI) and base-out (BO) fusional vergence at 40 cm was divided and placed in front of both eyes. At 0, 3, 6, 9 and 12 min after prism introduction, the stereoacuity was measured, and at 0 and 12 min, the heterophoria was measured. Results: The repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant difference between the mean stereoacuity for BI and BO prisms at the different measurement times (p < 0.05). For BO prism, the initial value was different between 0 and 3 min after the prism introduction, whereas for BI prism, a difference in stereoacuity was found between the pre-prism value and the value at 0, 3 and 6 min. The size of the heterophoria with BO and BI prisms was different from 0 to 12 min (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The time required for stereoacuity to return to baseline level was more than 3 min for BO, and more than 6 min for BI prism. In addition, the time required to return to baseline values was not similar for the stereoacuity and heterophoria. The recovery of stereoacuity is slower when adapting to divergence, as when looking from near to far. This implies that stereopsis responds faster to near targets than to distant one, and may precede complete phoria adaptation. © 2014 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc. All rights reserved: reproduction in whole or part not permitted.

Intraexaminer repeatability and agreement in stereoacuity measurements made in young adults

·AIM: To determine the repeatability and agreement of stereoacuity measurements made using some of the most widely used clinical tests: Frisby, TNO, Randot and Titmus. ·METHODS: Stereoacuity was measured in two different sessions separated by a time interval of at least 24h but no longer than 1wk in 74 subjects of mean age 20.6y using the four methods. The study participants were divided into two groups: subjects with normal binocular vision and subjects with abnormal binocular vision. ·RESULTS: Best repeatability was shown by the Frisby and Titmus [coefficient of repeatability (COR): 依13 and 依12s arc respectively] in the subjects with normal binocular vision though a clear ceiling effect was noted. In the subjects with abnormal binocular vision, best repeatability was shown by the Frisby (COR: 依69s arc) and Randot (COR: 依72s arc). In both groups, the TNO test showed poorest agreement with the other tests. ·CONCLUSION: Therepeatabilityof stereoacuitymeasures was low in subjects with poor binocular vision yet fairly good in subjects with normal binocular vision with the exception of the TNO test. The reduced agreement detected between the tests indicates they cannot be used interchangeably.

The effect of videoconferencing on the depth perception of observers

The ability of the human eye to perceive depth was measured using a specially designed instrument. Visual acuity and both monocular and binocular stereoacuity were measured when viewing the instrument directly and via a videoconferencing link. Ten subjects with an average age of 32.5 years (range 24-50) took part in the study. The group mean visual acuity using both eyes under normal test conditions was -0.04 logMAR (Snellen 6/5) compared with 0.18 logMAR (Snellen 6/10) for the video-link. The mean stereoacuity using both eyes was 37 (SD 18) under normal test conditions. When a videoconferencing link was used, the mean stereoacuity fell to 1218 (SD 1203) using one eye and to 1651 (SD 1419) using both eyes. The ability to perceive depth remotely via a video-link was significantly decreased compared with normal test conditions.

Visual function assessment in medical imaging research

Background - Medical image perception research relies on visual data to study the diagnostic relationship between observers and medical images. A consistent method to assess visual function for participants in medical imaging research has not been developed and represents a significant gap in existing research. Methods - Three visual assessment factors appropriate to observer studies were identified: visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and stereopsis. A test was designed for each, and 30 radiography observers (mean age 31.6 years) participated in each test. Results - Mean binocular visual acuity for distance was 20/14 for all observers. The difference between observers who did and did not use corrective lenses was not statistically significant (P = .12). All subjects had a normal value for near visual acuity and stereoacuity. Contrast sensitivity was better than population norms. Conclusion - All observers had normal visual function and could participate in medical imaging visual analysis studies. Protocols of evaluation and populations norms are provided. Further studies are necessary to understand fully the relationship between visual performance on tests and diagnostic accuracy in practice.

Lighting conditions and optical filters effects on visual performance of speleologists exposed to cave environments

The aim of this study is to evaluate lighting conditions and speleologists’ visual performance using optical filters when exposed to the lighting conditions of cave environments. A crosssectional study was conducted. Twenty-three speleologists were submitted to an evaluation of visual function in a clinical lab. An examination of visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, stereoacuity and flashlight illuminance levels was also performed in 16 of the 23 speleologists at two caves deprived of natural lightning. Two organic filters (450 nm and 550 nm) were used to compare visual function with and without filters. The mean age of the speleologists was 40.65 (± 10.93) years. We detected 26.1% participants with visual impairment of which refractive error (17.4%) was the major cause. In the cave environment the majority of the speleologists used a head flashlight with a mean illuminance of 451.0 ± 305.7 lux. Binocular visual acuity (BVA) was -0.05 ± 0.15 LogMAR (20/18). BVA for distance without filter was not statistically different from BVA with 550 nm or 450 nm filters (p = 0.093). Significant improved contrast sensitivity was observed with 450 nm filters for 6 cpd (p = 0.034) and 18 cpd (p = 0.026) spatial frequencies. There were no signs and symptoms of visual pathologies related to cave exposure. Illuminance levels were adequate to the majority of the activities performed. The enhancement in contrast sensitivity with filters could potentially improve tasks related with the activities performed in the cave.

Differences between naïve and expert observers’ vergence and accommodative responses to a range of targets

Purpose: Vergence and accommodation studies often use adult participants with experience of vision science. Reports of infant and clinical responses are generally more variable and of lower gain, with the implication that differences lie in immaturity or sub-optimal clinical characteristics but expert/naïve differences are rarely considered or quantified. Methods: Sixteen undergraduates, naïve to vision science, were individually matched by age, visual acuity, refractive error, heterophoria, stereoacuity and near point of accommodation to second- and third-year orthoptics and optometry undergraduates (‘experts’). Accommodation and vergence responses were assessed to targets moving between 33 cm, 50 cm, 1 m and 2 m using a haploscopic device incorporating a PlusoptiX SO4 autorefractor. Disparity, blur and looming cues were separately available or minimised in all combinations. Instruction set was minimal. Results: In all cases, vergence and accommodation response slopes (gain) were steeper and closer to 1.0 in the expert group (p = 0.001), with the largest expert/naïve differences for both vergence and accommodation being for near targets (p = 0.012). For vergence, the differences between expert and naïve response slopes increased with increasingly open-loop targets (linear trend p = 0.025). Although we predicted that proximal cues would drive additional response in the experts, the proximity-only cue was the only condition that showed no statistical effect of experience. Conclusions: Expert observers provide more accurate responses to near target demand than closely matched naïve observers. We suggest that attention, practice, voluntary and proprioceptive effects may enhance responses in experienced participants when compared to a more typical general population. Differences between adult reports and the developmental and clinical literature may partially reflect expert/naïve effects, as well as developmental change. If developmental and clinical studies are to be compared to adult normative data, uninstructed naïve adult data should be used.

Disparity with respect to a local reference plane as a dominant cue for stereoscopic depth relief

Earlier studies showed that the disparity with respect to other visible points could not explain stereoacuity performance, nor could various spatial derivatives of disparity [Glennerster, A., McKee, S. P., & Birch, M. D. (2002). Evidence of surface-based processing of binocular disparity. Current Biology, 12:825-828; Petrov, Y., & Glennerster, A. (2004). The role of the local reference in stereoscopic detection of depth relief. Vision Research, 44:367-376.] Two possible cues remain: (i) local changes in disparity gradient or (ii) disparity with respect to an interpolated line drawn through the reference points. Here, we aimed to distinguish between these two cues. Subjects judged.. in a two AFC paradigm, whether a target dot was in front of a plane defined by three reference dots or, in other experiments, in front of a line defined by two reference dots. We tested different slants of the reference line or plane and different locations of the target relative to the reference points. For slanted reference lines or plane, stereoacuity changed little as the target position was varied. For judgments relative to a frontoparallel reference line, stereoacuity did vary with target position, but less than would be predicted by disparity gradient change. This provides evidence that disparity with respect to the reference plane is an important cue. We discuss the potential advantages of this measure in generating a representation of surface relief that is invariant to viewpoint transformations. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Vergence control across saccades in dyslexic adults

Many aspects of vision have been investigated in developmental dyslexia. Some research suggests deficits in vergence control (e.g. Buzzelli, 1991, Optom. Vision Sci. 68, 842±846), although ability to control vergence across saccades has not yet been investigated. We have explored this question indirectly using Enright's (1996 Vision Res. 36, 307±312.) sequential stereopsis task. The task requires observers to set two adjacent targets (whose textures cannot be resolved simultaneously if either is fixated) to appear equi-distant. Enright has argued that sequential stereopsis stereoacuity thresholds offer an indication of vergence control across saccades. We report two experiments using a total of 17 dyslexic and 18 control adults. Performance was measured on a sequential stereopsis task and an ordinary `simultaneous' stereopsis task. No significant differences between groups were found. However, whereas practice of the sequential task lowered control group thresholds on the simultaneous task, for the dyslexic group it significantly raised thresholds, suggesting that visual fatigue is especially important in investigations of visual functions in dyslexia. Although the small samples used limit conclusions at this stage, the main sequential stereopsis results suggest that, if Enright is correct, dyslexic adults can show normal vergence control across saccades.

Visual comparison of multifocal contact lens to monovision

Purpose. To compare visual function with the Bausch & Lomb PureVision multifocal contact lens to monovision with PureVision single vision contact lenses. Methods. Twenty presbyopic subjects were fitted with either the PureVision multifocal contact lens or monovision with PureVision singlevision lenses. Aftera 1-month trial, the following assessments of visual function were made: (a) distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (VA); (b) reading ability; (c) distance and near contrast sensitivity function (CSF); (d) near range of clear vision; (e) stereoacuity; and (f) subjective evaluation of near vision ability with a standardized questionnaire. Subjects were then refitted with the alternative correction and the procedure was repeated. All measurements were compared between the two corrections, whereas the ``low addition'' multifocal lens was also compared with the ``high addition'' alternative. Results. Distance and near VA were significantly better with monovision than with the multifocal option (p < 0.05). Intermediate VA (p = 0.13) was similar with both corrections, whereas there was also no significant difference in distance and near CSF (p = 0.29 on both occasions). Reading speeds (p = 0.48) and the critical print size (p = 0.90) were not significantly different between the two contact lens corrections, but stereoacuity (p < 0.01) and the near range of clear vision (p < 0.05) were significantly better with the multifocal option than with monovision. Subjective assessment of near ability was similar for both types of contact lens (p = 0.52). The high addition multifocal lens produced significantly poorer distance and near CSF, near VA, and critical print size compared with the low addition alternative. Conclusions. Monovision performed better than a center-near aspheric simultaneous vision multifocal contact lens of the same material for distance and near VA only. The multifocal option provides better stereoacuity and near range of clear vision, with little differences in CSF, so a better balance of real-world visual function may be achieved due to minimal binocular disruption. (Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:98-105)

Determining which factors influence the optimum multifocal contact lens correction for presbyopia

Presbyopia is a consequence of ageing and is therefore increasing inprevalence due to an increase in the ageing population. Of the many methods available to manage presbyopia, the use of contact lenses is indeed a tried and tested reversible option for those wishing to be spectacle free. Contact lens options to correct presbyopia include multifocal contact lenses and monovision.Several options have been available for many years with available guides to help choose multifocal contact lenses. However there is no comprehensive way to help the practitioner selecting the best option for an individual. An examination of the simplest way of predicting the most suitable multifocal lens for a patient will only enhance and add to the current evidence available. The purpose of the study was to determine the current use of presbyopic correction modalities in an optometric practice population in the UK and to evaluate and compare the optical performance of four silicone hydrogel soft multifocal contact lenses and to compare multifocal performance with contact lens monovision. The presbyopic practice cohort principal forms of refractive correction were distance spectacles (with near and intermediate vision providedby a variety of other forms of correction), varifocal spectacles and unaided distance with reading spectacles, with few patients wearing contact lenses as their primary correction modality. The results of the multifocal contact lens randomised controlled trial showed that there were only minor differences in corneal physiology between the lens options. Visual acuity differences were observed for distance targets, but only for low contrast letters and under mesopic lighting conditions. At closer distances between 20cm and 67cm, the defocus curves demonstrated that there were significant differences in acuity between lens designs (p < 0.001) and there was an interaction between the lens design and the level of defocus (p < 0.001). None of the lenses showed a clear near addition, perhaps due to their more aspheric rather than zoned design. As expected, stereoacuity was reduced with monovision compared with the multifocal contact lens designs, although there were some differences between the multifocal lens designs (p < 0.05). Reading speed did not differ between lens designs (F = 1.082, p = 0.368), whereas there was a significant difference in critical print size (F = 7.543, p < 0.001). Glare was quantified with a novel halometer and halo size was found to significantly differ between lenses(F = 4.101, p = 0.004). The rating of iPhone image clarity was significantly different between presbyopic corrections (p = 0.002) as was the Near Acuity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) rating of near performance (F = 3.730, p = 0.007).The pupil size did not alter with contact lens design (F = 1.614, p = 0.175), but was larger in the dominant eye (F = 5.489, p = 0.025). Pupil decentration relative to the optical axis did not alter with contact lens design (F = 0.777, p =0.542), but was also greater in the dominant eye (F = 9.917, p = 0.003). It was interesting to note that there was no difference in spherical aberrations induced between the contact lens designs (p > 0.05), with eye dominance (p > 0.05) oroptical component (ocular, corneal or internal: p > 0.05). In terms of subjective patient lens preference, 10 patients preferred monovision,12 Biofinity multifocal lens, 7 Purevision 2 for Presbyopia, 4 AirOptix multifocal and 2 Oasys multifocal contact lenses. However, there were no differences in demographic factors relating to lifestyle or personality, or physiological characteristics such as pupil size or ocular aberrations as measured at baseline,which would allow a practitioner to identify which lens modality the patient would prefer. In terms of the performance of patients with their preferred lens, it emerged that Biofinity multifocal lens preferring patients had a better high contrast acuity under photopic conditions, maintained their reading speed at smaller print sizes and subjectively rated iPhone clarity as better with this lens compared with the other lens designs trialled. Patients who preferred monovision had a lower acuity across a range of distances and a larger area of glare than those patients preferring other lens designs that was unexplained by the clinical metrics measured. However, it seemed that a complex interaction of aberrations may drive lens preference. New clinical tests or more diverse lens designs which may allow practitioners to prescribe patients the presbyopic contact lens option that will work best for them first time remains a hope for the future.

A method to determine the impact of reduced visual function on nodule detection performance

Purpose - In this study we aim to validate a method to assess the impact of reduced visual function and observer performance concurrently with a nodule detection task. Materials and methods - Three consultant radiologists completed a nodule detection task under three conditions: without visual defocus (0.00 Dioptres; D), and with two different magnitudes of visual defocus (−1.00 D and −2.00 D). Defocus was applied with lenses and visual function was assessed prior to each image evaluation. Observers evaluated the same cases on each occasion; this comprised of 50 abnormal cases containing 1–4 simulated nodules (5, 8, 10 and 12 mm spherical diameter, 100 HU) placed within a phantom, and 25 normal cases (images containing no nodules). Data was collected under the free-response paradigm and analysed using Rjafroc. A difference in nodule detection performance would be considered significant at p < 0.05. Results - All observers had acceptable visual function prior to beginning the nodule detection task. Visual acuity was reduced to an unacceptable level for two observers when defocussed to −1.00 D and for one observer when defocussed to −2.00 D. Stereoacuity was unacceptable for one observer when defocussed to −2.00 D. Despite unsatisfactory visual function in the presence of defocus we were unable to find a statistically significant difference in nodule detection performance (F(2,4) = 3.55, p = 0.130). Conclusion - A method to assess visual function and observer performance is proposed. In this pilot evaluation we were unable to detect any difference in nodule detection performance when using lenses to reduce visual function.

Visual suppression in intermittent exotropia during binocular alignment.

PURPOSE To investigate the cortical mechanisms that prevent diplopia in intermittent exotropia (X(T)) during binocular alignment (orthotropia). METHODS The authors studied 12 X(T) patients aged 5 to 22 years. Seventy-five percent had functional stereo vision with stereoacuity similar to that of 12 age-matched controls (0.2-3.7 min arc). Identical face images were presented to the two eyes for 400 ms. In one eye, the face was presented at the fovea; in the other, offset along the horizontal axis with up to 12° eccentricity. The task was to indicate whether one or two faces were perceived. RESULTS All X(T) patients showed normal diplopia when the nonfoveal face was presented to nasal hemiretina, though with a slightly larger fusional range than age-matched controls. However, 10 of 12 patients never experienced diplopia when the nonfoveal face was presented to temporal hemiretina (i.e., when the stimulus simulated exodeviation). Patients showed considerable variability when the single image was perceived. Some patients suppressed the temporal stimulus regardless of which eye viewed it, whereas others suppressed a particular eye even when it viewed the foveal stimulus. In two patients, the simulated exodeviation might have triggered a shift from normal to anomalous retinal correspondence. CONCLUSIONS Antidiplopic mechanisms in X(T) can be reliably triggered by purely retinal information during orthotropia, but the nature of these mechanisms varies between patients.