17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impaired Fellow Eye Motion Perception and Abnormal Binocular Function

      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

          Binocular discordance due to strabismus, anisometropia, or both may result in not only monocular visual acuity deficits, but also in motion perception deficits. We determined the prevalence of fellow-eye deficits in motion-defined form (MDF) perception, the ability to identify a two-dimensional (2D) shape defined by motion rather than luminance contrast. We also examined the following: the causative role of reduced visual acuity and binocularity, associations with clinical and sensory factors, and effectiveness of binocular amblyopia treatment in alleviating deficits.

          Methods

          Participants included 91 children with residual amblyopia (strabismic, anisometropic, or both; age, 9.0 ± 1.7 years), 79 nonamblyopic children with treated strabismus or anisometropia (age, 8.5 ± 2.1 years), and 20 controls (age, 8.6 ± 1.5 years). MDF coherence thresholds, visual acuity, stereoacuity, and interocular suppression were measured.

          Results

          MDF deficits, relative to controls, were present in the fellow eye of 23% of children with residual amblyopia and 20% of nonamblyopic children. Stereoacuity and age first patched were correlated with MDF threshold ( r = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.09–0.47; r = −0.33, 95% CI : −0.13 to −0.50, respectively). MDF deficits were more common in children treated with patching alone than in those receiving contrast-rebalanced binocular treatment with games or movies ( t 89 = 3.46; P = 0.0008). The latter was associated with a reduction in mean fellow eye MDF threshold ( t 26 = 6.32, P < 0.0001).

          Conclusions

          Fellow eye MDF deficits are common and likely reflect abnormalities in binocular cortical mechanisms that result from early discordant visual experience. Binocular amblyopia treatment, which is effective in improving amblyopic eye visual acuity, appears to provide a benefit for the fellow eye.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

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

          Amblyopia and binocular vision.

          Gary Birch (2013)
          Amblyopia is the most common cause of monocular visual loss in children, affecting 1.3%-3.6% of children. Current treatments are effective in reducing the visual acuity deficit but many amblyopic individuals are left with residual visual acuity deficits, ocular motor abnormalities, deficient fine motor skills, and risk for recurrent amblyopia. Using a combination of psychophysical, electrophysiological, imaging, risk factor analysis, and fine motor skill assessment, the primary role of binocular dysfunction in the genesis of amblyopia and the constellation of visual and motor deficits that accompany the visual acuity deficit has been identified. These findings motivated us to evaluate a new, binocular approach to amblyopia treatment with the goals of reducing or eliminating residual and recurrent amblyopia and of improving the deficient ocular motor function and fine motor skills that accompany amblyopia. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Form and motion coherence activate independent, but not dorsal/ventral segregated, networks in the human brain.

            There is much evidence in primates' visual processing for distinct mechanisms involved in object recognition and encoding object position and motion, which have been identified with 'ventral' and 'dorsal' streams, respectively, of the extra-striate visual areas [1] [2] [3]. This distinction may yield insights into normal human perception, its development and pathology. Motion coherence sensitivity has been taken as a test of global processing in the dorsal stream [4] [5]. We have proposed an analogous 'form coherence' measure of global processing in the ventral stream [6]. In a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experiment, we found that the cortical regions activated by form coherence did not overlap with those activated by motion coherence in the same individuals. Areas differentially activated by form coherence included regions in the middle occipital gyrus, the ventral occipital surface, the intraparietal sulcus, and the temporal lobe. Motion coherence activated areas consistent with those previously identified as V5 and V3a, the ventral occipital surface, the intraparietal sulcus, and temporal structures. Neither form nor motion coherence activated area V1 differentially. Form and motion foci in occipital, parietal, and temporal areas were nearby but showed almost no overlap. These results support the idea that form and motion coherence test distinct functional brain systems, but that these do not necessarily correspond to a gross anatomical separation of dorsal and ventral processing streams.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The pattern of visual deficits in amblyopia.

              Amblyopia is usually defined as a deficit in optotype (Snellen) acuity with no detectable organic cause. We asked whether this visual abnormality is completely characterized by the deficit in optotype acuity, or whether it has distinct forms that are determined by the conditions associated with the acuity loss, such as strabismus or anisometropia. To decide this issue, we measured optotype acuity, Vernier acuity, grating acuity, contrast sensitivity, and binocular function in 427 adults with amblyopia or with risk factors for amblyopia and in a comparison group of 68 normal observers. Optotype acuity accounts for much of the variance in Vernier and grating acuity, and somewhat less of the variance in contrast sensitivity. Nevertheless, there are differences in the patterns of visual loss among the clinically defined categories, particularly between strabismic and anisometropic categories. We used factor analysis to create a succinct representation of our measurement space. This analysis revealed two main dimensions of variation in the visual performance of our abnormal sample, one related to the visual acuity measures (optotype, Vernier, and grating acuity) and the other related to the contrast sensitivity measures (Pelli-Robson and edge contrast sensitivity). Representing our data in this space reveals distinctive distributions of visual loss for different patient categories, and suggests that two consequences of the associated conditions--reduced resolution and loss of binocularity--determine the pattern of visual deficit. Non-binocular observers with mild-to-moderate acuity deficits have, on average, better monocular contrast sensitivity than do binocular observers with the same acuity loss. Despite their superior contrast sensitivity, non-binocular observers typically have poorer optotype acuity and Vernier acuity, at a given level of grating acuity, than those with residual binocular function.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
                Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci
                iovs
                Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
                IOVS
                Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
                The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
                0146-0404
                1552-5783
                August 2019
                : 60
                : 10
                : 3374-3380
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Crystal Charity Ball Pediatric Vision Laboratory, Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas, United States
                [2 ]Department of Ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, United States
                [3 ]Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Eileen E. Birch, Retina Foundation of the Southwest, 9600 North Central Expressway, Suite 200, Dallas, TX 75231, USA; ebirch@ 123456retinafoundation.org .
                Article
                i1552-5783-60-10-3374 IOVS-19-26885R2
                10.1167/iovs.19-26885
                6685447
                31387113
                de36e3c8-6897-47b5-90f5-b1182d369393
                Copyright 2019 The Authors

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 13 February 2019
                : 2 July 2019
                Categories
                Eye Movements, Strabismus, Amblyopia and Neuro-Ophthalmology

                amblyopia,binocular vision,motion perception
                amblyopia, binocular vision, motion perception

                Comments

                Comment on this article