The functional impact of amblyopia : The functional impact of amblyopia

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.

Amblyopia is a neuro-developmental disorder of the visual cortex that arises from abnormal visual experience early in life. Amblyopia is clinically important because it is a major cause of vision loss in infants and young children. Amblyopia is also of basic interest because it reflects the neural impairment that occurs when normal visual development is disrupted. Amblyopia provides an ideal model for understanding when and how brain plasticity may be harnessed for recovery of function. Over the past two decades there has been a rekindling of interest in developing more effective methods for treating amblyopia, and for extending the treatment beyond the critical period, as exemplified by new clinical trials and new basic research studies. The focus of this review is on stereopsis and its potential for recovery. Impaired stereoscopic depth perception is the most common deficit associated with amblyopia under ordinary (binocular) viewing conditions (Webber & Wood, 2005). Our review of the extant literature suggests that this impairment may have a substantial impact on visuomotor tasks, difficulties in playing sports in children and locomoting safely in older adults. Furthermore, impaired stereopsis may also limit career options for amblyopes. Finally, stereopsis is more impacted in strabismic than in anisometropic amblyopia. Our review of the various approaches to treating amblyopia (patching, perceptual learning, videogames) suggests that there are several promising new approaches to recovering stereopsis in both anisometropic and strabismic amblyopes. However, recovery of stereoacuity may require more active treatment in strabismic than in anisometropic amblyopia. Individuals with strabismic amblyopia have a very low probability of improvement with monocular training; however they fare better with dichoptic training than with monocular training, and even better with direct stereo training.

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.