Ocular dominancy in conjugate eye movements at reading distance

Digital Pupillometry and Centroid Shift Changes in Dominant and Nondominant Eyes

PURPOSE

To investigate the differences between dominant and nondominant eyes in a predominantly young patient population by analyzing the angle kappa, pupil size, and center position in dominant and nondominant eyes.

METHODS

A total of 126 young college students (252 eyes) with myopia who underwent femtosecond laser-combined LASIK were randomly selected. Ocular dominance was determined using the hole-in-card test. The WaveLight Allegro Topolyzer (WaveLight Laser Technologies AG, Erlangen, Germany) was used to measure the pupil size and center position. The offset between the pupil center and the coaxially sighted corneal light reflex (P-Dist) of the patients was recorded by the x- and y-axis eyeball tracking adjustment program of the WaveLight Eagle Vision EX500 excimer laser system (Wavelight GmbH). The patient's vision (uncorrected distance visual acuity [UDVA], best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and refractive power (spherical equivalent, SE) were observed preoperatively, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks postoperatively, and a quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire was completed.

RESULTS

Ocular dominance occurred predominantly in the right eye [right vs. left: (178) 70.63% vs. (74) 29.37%; p < 0.001]. The P-Dist was 0.202 ± 0.095 mm in the dominant eye and 0.215 ± 0.103 mm in the nondominant eye (p = 0.021). The horizontal pupil shift was - 0.07 ± 0.14 mm in dominant eyes and 0.01 ± 0.13 mm in nondominant eyes (p = 0.001) (the temporal displacement of the dominant eye under mesopic conditions). The SE was negatively correlated with the P-Dist (r = - 0.223, p = 0.012 for the dominant eye and r = - 0.199, p = 0.025 for the nondominant eye). At 12 weeks postoperatively, the safety index (postoperative BDVA/preoperative BDVA) of the dominant and nondominant eyes was 1.20 (1.00, 1.22) and 1.20 (1.00, 1.20), respectively, and the efficacy index (postoperative UDVA/preoperative BDVA) was 1.00 (1.00, 1.20) and 1.00 (1.00, 1.20), respectively; the proportion of residual SE within ± 0.50 D was 98 and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that ocular dominance occurred predominantly in the right eye. The pupil size change was larger in the dominant eye. The angle kappa of the dominant eye was smaller than that of the nondominant eye and the pupil center of the dominant eye was slightly shifted to the temporal side under mesopic conditions. The correction of myopia in the dominant and nondominant eyes exhibits good safety, efficacy, and predictability in the short term after surgery, and has good subjective visual quality performance after correction. We suggest adjusting the angle kappa percentage in the dominant eye to be lower than that of the nondominant eye in individualized corneal refractive surgery in order to find the ablation center closest to the visual axis.

Impact of ocular dominance on circumpapillary and macular retinal nerve fibre layer thickness and ganglion cell layer thickness in a healthy pediatric population

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to evaluate potential differences in circumpapillary retinal nerve fibre layer (cpRNFL) thickness and segmented macular retinal layers between dominant and nondominant eyes on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in a pediatric population.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

89 healthy children attending a general pediatric clinic.

METHODS

Participants underwent sighting dominant testing and macular and cpRNFL spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Segmented macular layer thicknesses and cpRNFL thickness were compared for individual patients based on their ocular dominance.

RESULTS

Ocular dominance occurred particularly in the right eye (64.7%). Dominant and nondominant eyes did not differ significantly in axial length or spherical equivalent refraction; axial length: 22.99 ± 1.17 mm versus 22.98 ± 1.19 mm; p = 0.51 and spherical equivalent refraction: -0.09 ± 2.68 D versus 0.32 ± 2.93 D; p = 0.41. In the comparison of the macular ganglion layer the average thickness in the 1 mm central Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study area was significantly different between the dominant and nondominant eye (16.56 ± 6.02 μm vs 17.58 ± 8.32 μm; p = 0.02). However, when compensating with Bonferroni, this difference was no longer statistically significant. There were no differences in the analyses of average global and sectorial cpRNFL thickness in dominant and nondominant eyes.

CONCLUSION

Dominant eyes demonstrated no significantly thicker average macular retinal nerve fiber layer (mRNFL), Ganglion cell layer (GCL) thickness or cpRNFL thickness. No ocular characteristic was found to be associated with the relative dominance of an eye in eyes with low anisometropia.

Eye-dominance-guided Foveated Rendering

Optimizing rendering performance is critical for a wide variety of virtual reality (VR) applications. Foveated rendering is emerging as an indispensable technique for reconciling interactive frame rates with ever-higher head-mounted display resolutions. Here, we present a simple yet effective technique for further reducing the cost of foveated rendering by leveraging ocular dominance - the tendency of the human visual system to prefer scene perception from one eye over the other. Our new approach, eye-dominance-guided foveated rendering (EFR), renders the scene at a lower foveation level (with higher detail) for the dominant eye than the non-dominant eye. Compared with traditional foveated rendering, EFR can be expected to provide superior rendering performance while preserving the same level of perceived visual quality.

Monocular and binocular reading performance in subjects with normal binocular vision

BACKGROUND

It is well known that problems with binocular vision can cause issues for reading; less known is to what extent binocular vision improves reading performance. The purpose of this study was to explore the role of binocularity by directly comparing monocular and binocular reading in subjects with typical reading skills and normal binocular vision. A secondary purpose was to assess any asymmetry in monocular performance and its association with the sighting dominant eye.

METHODS

In a balanced repeated measures experiment, 18 subjects read paragraphs of text under monocular and binocular conditions. All subjects went through an optometric examination before inclusion. Reading speed and eye movements were recorded with an eye tracker.

RESULTS

The mean difference in reading speed (2.1 per cent) between monocular (dominant and non-dominant eye averaged) and binocular reading speed was not significant. A significant difference in reading speed was found between binocular and the non-dominant eye, as determined by the far sighting test (p = 0.03). Monocular reading showed significantly increased (8.9 per cent) fixation duration (p < 0.01) and longer regressive saccades by 0.43 character spaces (p < 0.01). Reading with the non-dominant eye, as determined by the near sighting test, showed increased progressive saccade length by 0.2 characters compared to the dominant eye (p = 0.03). No other significant differences between dominant and non-dominant eyes were found. The agreement between the faster reading eye and ocular dominance was 44 to 56 per cent depending on whether dominance was determined at near or far.

CONCLUSION

The outcomes suggest that in subjects with normal binocular vision, there is no marked enhancement in reading performance by binocular vision when reading paragraphs of text. Furthermore, the monocular reading performance appears to be close to equal and any small differences in performance appear not to be strongly associated with ocular dominance.

Relation of eye dominancy with color vision discrimination performance ability in normal subjects

AIM

To evaluate the performance of dominant eye (DE) for color vision discrimination ability among the medical students with normal color vision.

METHODS

Total of 50 students studying at Başkent University Faculty of Medicine, including 31 males (62%) and 19 females (38%), with visual acuity of 20/20 and without congenital color vision deficiency (CCVD) evaluated by Ishihara pseudoisochromatic plate test (IPPT) were recruited for this prospective comparative study upon their voluntary participation. DE was determined by the Gündoğan Method. The color discrimination ability was examined with the Farnsworth-Munsell 100 hue (FM100) test. Test was applied by two days interval to all subjects for the three times while two eyes (TE), right eye (RE) and left eye (LE) were seeing for detecting red-green (r/g), blue-yellow (b/y) local color spectral regions error scores. The error scores were evaluated for both in DE and non-dominant (NDE). P values below 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

The students aged 21.18±2.52 years (mean±SD). Without sex difference the RE and the LE dominancy were found 22 (44%) and 28 (56%) respectively and FM 100 test total error scores of DE in both r/g-b/y regions were found without gender difference 24.12±14.70, 34.68±18.95, respectively. For the NDE in both, r/g-b/y regions error scores without gender difference were 32.20±19.21, 36.24±17.56, respectively. The difference of total error scores between the DE and NDE was found as 58.80±29.92, 68.44±31.46. The statistical differences among the DE and the NDE in r/g local region and total error scores were found significant in both genders (P<0.05, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The color vision discrimination performance ability was found prominent for DE. This superiority was attributed to higher sensitivity of the r/g local color spectral region. We conclude that DE has priority in r/g color spectral region, probably including inhibition of NDE.

The horizontal dark oculomotor rest position

BACKGROUND

This study sought to investigate whether eye dominance and age are related to the stimulus-free oculomotor resting state described via the dark disconjugate position (near or far), the dark conjugate position (left to right), and the near dissociated phoria.

METHODS

Nineteen non-presbyopes and 25 presbyopes with normal binocular vision participated in two identical sessions. The left-eye and the right-eye positions were recorded using a video-based infrared eye tracker while the subjects were in total darkness. Dark disconjugate responses and dark conjugate responses were calculated by computing the difference and the average of the left-eye and the right-eye response, respectively. The right-eye decaying to the phoria level was recorded for 15 s.

RESULTS

A one-way ANOVA assessed statistical differences in dark conjugate and dark disconjugate positions, comparing 1) the right-eye and the left-eye sensory and/or motor dominant groups and 2) the non-presbyope and presbyope groups. The test-retests of the dark disconjugate position, the dark conjugate position and the near dissociated heterophoria were high between sessions (r > 0.85; p < 0.00001). For non-presbyopes the right-eye (left-eye) motor and sensory dominant subjects showed a rightward (leftward) dark conjugate position (p < 0.01). The dark disconjugate position was receded in presbyopes compared to non-presbyopes (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The data support that the left-eye, or the right-eye, motor and sensory dominance predicts the direction of the dark conjugate position. Future studies could investigate the underlying neural substrates that may, in part, contribute to the resting state of the oculomotor system in a stimulus-free environment. Knowledge of the brain-behavior governing visual-field preference has implications for understanding the natural aging process of the visual system.

Ocular dominance and balance performance in healthy adults

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of ocular dominance on balance performance in healthy adult subjects.

METHODS

Ocular dominance was determined in 24 healthy subjects using the hole-in-the-paper test. Balance function was evaluated by computerized dynamic platform posturography (CDPP). Sway index (SI), antero-posterior sway (APS) and lateral sway (LS) were served as outcome parameters.

RESULTS

The outcome parameters did not differ significantly between dominant and non-dominant eye fixation both in static and angular balance tests (SI-5.47+/-0.42, 6.23+/-0.52, p=0.146 and 18.4+/-1.07, 19.11+/-1.15, p=0.142, respectively; APS--2.26+/-4.68, -5.1+/-4.6, p=0.082 and -1.94+/-3.33, -3.64+/-2.6, p=0.48, respectively; LS--1.21+/-1.46, -1.12+/-1.66 p=0.94 and -1.98+/-1.16, -1.55+/-1.39, p=0.69, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Ocular dominance does not seem to affect postural function in the monovision and far viewing condition.

Eye dominance effects in conjunction search

We previously found a dominant eye perceptional advantage in feature search (Vision Research, 2006). We now ask if this advantage extends to difficult conjunction search, which requires focused attention and depends on different cortical hierarchy levels. We determined eye dominance by the Hole-in-the-Card test. Using red-green glasses, subjects viewed a briefly presented, backward-masked, array of red/green dotted squares and filled circles. On half of the trials a filled square target replaced one dotted square. There was significantly better performance when the target was seen by the dominant eye, suggesting its visual processing priority in slow, as in rapid search, perhaps including augmented attention to dominant eye representations. Binocular conjunction targets were found faster than monocular targets, though binocularity--as utrocular information--was insufficient to support reasonable detection levels.

Eye dominance effects in feature search

We studied the role of eye dominance in non-rivalry conditions, testing dichoptic visual search and comparing performance with target presented to the dominant or non-dominant eye. Using red-green glasses, subjects viewed an array of green and red lines of uniform orientation, with a differently oriented target line present on half the trials. Performance was significantly better when the dominant eye saw the target, especially when the opposite eye saw the distractors. This effect was reduced when only nearest-neighbor surrounding distractors were homogeneous. We conclude that the dominant eye has priority in visual processing, perhaps including inhibition of non-dominant eye representations.