18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessing Binocular Interaction in Amblyopia and Its Clinical Feasibility

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          To measure binocular interaction in amblyopes using a rapid and patient-friendly computer-based method, and to test the feasibility of the assessment in the clinic.

          Methods

          Binocular interaction was assessed in subjects with strabismic amblyopia (n = 7), anisometropic amblyopia (n = 6), strabismus without amblyopia (n = 15) and normal vision (n = 40). Binocular interaction was measured with a dichoptic phase matching task in which subjects matched the position of a binocular probe to the cyclopean perceived phase of a dichoptic pair of gratings whose contrast ratios were systematically varied. The resulting effective contrast ratio of the weak eye was taken as an indicator of interocular imbalance. Testing was performed in an ophthalmology clinic under 8 mins. We examined the relationships between our binocular interaction measure and standard clinical measures indicating abnormal binocularity such as interocular acuity difference and stereoacuity. The test-retest reliability of the testing method was also evaluated.

          Results

          Compared to normally-sighted controls, amblyopes exhibited significantly reduced effective contrast (∼20%) of the weak eye, suggesting a higher contrast requirement for the amblyopic eye compared to the fellow eye. We found that the effective contrast ratio of the weak eye covaried with standard clincal measures of binocular vision. Our results showed that there was a high correlation between the 1 st and 2 nd measurements ( r = 0.94, p<0.001) but without any significant bias between the two.

          Conclusions

          Our findings demonstrate that abnormal binocular interaction can be reliably captured by measuring the effective contrast ratio of the weak eye and quantitative assessment of binocular interaction is a quick and simple test that can be performed in the clinic. We believe that reliable and timely assessment of deficits in a binocular interaction may improve detection and treatment of amblyopia.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

          In clinical measurement comparison of a new measurement technique with an established one is often needed to see whether they agree sufficiently for the new to replace the old. Such investigations are often analysed inappropriately, notably by using correlation coefficients. The use of correlation is misleading. An alternative approach, based on graphical techniques and simple calculations, is described, together with the relation between this analysis and the assessment of repeatability.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Binocular interaction in striate cortex of kittens reared with artificial squint.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The threshold contrast sensitivity function in strabismic amblyopia: evidence for a two type classification.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2014
                24 June 2014
                : 9
                : 6
                : e100156
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Schepens Eye Research Institute/Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
                [2 ]Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
                [3 ]Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America
                [4 ]Department of Ophthalmology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
                University College London, United Kingdom
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: Peter Bex, a co-author of the manuscript, is a PLOS ONE Editorial Board member. However, this does not alter the authors' adherence to PLOS ONE editorial policies and criteria.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: MYK Z-LL PJB. Performed the experiments: MYK AM. Analyzed the data: MYK. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: MK DGH. Wrote the paper: MYK Z-LL PJB. Subject recruiting for research: MYK AM MK DGH. Joined the discussion and the revision of the manuscript: MYK Z-LL MK DGH PJB.

                Article
                PONE-D-14-04138
                10.1371/journal.pone.0100156
                4069064
                24959842
                4dbcc42b-7bb5-49ab-8d0d-f45867472268
                Copyright @ 2014

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 29 January 2014
                : 22 May 2014
                Page count
                Pages: 11
                Funding
                This work was supported by NIH grant R01 EY021553. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Sensory Perception
                Psychophysics
                Psychology

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article