Ocular dominance plasticity: A binocular combination task finds no cumulative effect with repeated patching

Daily dose-response from short-term monocular deprivation in adult humans

Short-term monocular deprivation (MD) shifts sensory eye balance in favour of the previously deprived eye. The effect of MD on eye balance is significant but brief in adult humans. Recently, researchers and clinicians have attempted to implement MD in clinical settings for adults with impaired binocular vision. Although the effect of MD has been studied in detail in single-session protocols, what is not known is whether the effect of MD on eye balance deteriorates after repeated periods of MD (termed 'perceptual deterioration'). An answer to this question is relevant for two reasons. Firstly, the effect of MD (i.e., dose-response) should not decrease with repeated use if MD is to be used therapeutically (e.g., daily for weeks). Second, it bears upon the question of whether the neural basis of the effects of MD and contrast adaptation, a closely related phenomenon, is the same. The sensory change from contrast adaptation depends on recent experience. If the observer has recently experienced the same adaptation multiple times for consecutive days, then the adaptation effect will be smaller because contrast adaptation exhibits perceptual deterioration, so it is of interest to know if the effects of MD follow suit. This study measured the effect of 2-h MD for seven consecutive days on binocular balance of 15 normally sighted adults. We found that the shift in eye balance from MD stayed consistent, showing no signs of deterioration after subjects experienced multiple periods of MD. This finding shows no loss of effectiveness of repeated daily doses of MD if used therapeutically to rebalance binocular vision in otherwise normal individuals. Furthermore, ocular dominance plasticity, which is the basis of the effects of short-term MD, does not seem to share the property of 'perceptual deterioration' with contrast adaptation, suggesting different neural bases for these two related phenomena.

Negligible contribution of adaptation of ocular opponency neurons to the effect of short-term monocular deprivation

Introduction

Modeling work on binocular rivalry has described how ocular opponency neurons represent interocular conflict. These neurons have recently been considered to mediate an ocular dominance shift to the eye that has viewed a backward movie for long during which time the other eye is presented with a regular movie. Unlike typical short-term monocular deprivation, the visual inputs are comparable across eyes in that "dichoptic-backward-movie" paradigm. Therefore, it remains unclear whether the ocular opponency neurons are also responsible for the short-term monocular deprivation effect which is prevalently explained by the homeostatic compensation theory. We designed two experiments from distinct perspectives to investigate this question.

Methods

In Experiment 1, we mitigated the imbalance in the activity of opponency neurons between the two eyes during monocular deprivation by presenting video stimuli alternately. In Experiment 2, we directly evaluated the response of opponency neurons before and after monocular deprivation using SSVEP techniques.

Results

Consistent with each other, both experiments failed to provide reliable evidence supporting the involvement of ocular opponency neurons in the short-term monocular deprivation effect.

Discussion

Our results suggest that ocular opponency neurons may not play an essential role in the short-term monocular deprivation effect, potentially due to interference from the homeostatic plasticity mechanism.

The duration effect of short-term monocular deprivation measured by binocular rivalry and binocular combination

The ocular dominance shift observed after short-term monocular deprivation is a widely used measure of visual homeostatic plasticity in adult humans. Binocular rivalry and binocular combination techniques are used interchangeably to characterize homeostatic plasticity, sometimes leading to contradictory results. Here we directly compare the effect of short-term monocular deprivation on ocular dominance measured by either binocular rivalry or binocular combination and its dependence on the duration of deprivation (15 or 120 min) in the same group of participants. Our results show that both binocular rivalry and binocular combination provide reliable estimates of ocular dominance, which are strongly correlated across techniques both before and after deprivation. Moreover, while 15 min of monocular deprivation induce a larger shift of ocular dominance when measured using binocular combination compared to binocular rivalry, for both techniques, the shift in ocular dominance exhibits a strong dependence on the duration of monocular deprivation, with longer deprivation inducing a larger and longer-lasting shift in ocular dominance. Taken together, our results indicate that both binocular rivalry and binocular combination offer very consistent and reliable measurements of both ocular dominance and the effect short-term monocular deprivation.

Metaplasticity: Dark exposure boosts local excitability and visual plasticity in adult human cortex

An interlude of dark exposure for about 1 week is known to shift excitatory/inhibitory (E/I) balance of the mammalian visual cortex, promoting plasticity and accelerating visual recovery in animals that have experienced cortical lesions during development. However, the translational impact of our understanding of dark exposure from animal studies to humans remains elusive. Here, we used magnetic resonance spectroscopy as a probe for E/I balance in the primary visual cortex (V1) to determine the effect of 60 min of dark exposure, and measured binocular combination as a behavioural assay to assess visual plasticity in 14 normally sighted human adults. To induce neuroplastic changes in the observers, we introduced 60 min of monocular deprivation, which is known to temporarily shift sensory eye balance in favour of the previously deprived eye. We report that prior dark exposure for 60 min strengthens local excitability in V1 and boosts visual plasticity in normal adults. However, we show that it does not promote plasticity in amblyopic adults. Nevertheless, our findings are surprising, given the fact that the interlude is very brief. Interestingly, we find that the increased concentration of the excitatory neurotransmitter is not strongly correlated with the enhanced functional plasticity. Instead, the absolute degree of change in its concentration is related to the boost, suggesting that the dichotomy of cortical excitation and inhibition might not explain the physiological basis of plasticity in humans. We present the first evidence that an environmental manipulation that shifts cortical E/I balance can also act as a metaplastic facilitator for visual plasticity in humans. KEY POINTS: A brief interlude (60 min) of dark exposure increased the local concentration of glutamine/glutamate but not that of GABA in the visual cortex of adult humans. After dark exposure, the degree of the shift in sensory eye dominance in favour of the previously deprived eye from short-term monocular deprivation was larger than that from only monocular deprivation. The neurochemical and behavioural measures were associated: the magnitude of the shift in the concentration of glutamine/glutamate was correlated with the boost in perceptual plasticity after dark exposure. Surprisingly, the increase in the concentration of glutamine/glutamate was not correlated with the perceptual boost after dark exposure, suggesting that the physiological mechanism of how E/I balance regulates plasticity is not deterministic. In other words, an increased excitation did not unilaterally promote plasticity.

Internal neural states influence the short-term effect of monocular deprivation in human adults

The adult human visual system maintains the ability to be altered by sensory deprivation. What has not been considered is whether the internal neural states modulate visual sensitivity to short-term monocular deprivation. In this study we manipulated the internal neural state and reported changes in intrinsic neural oscillations with a patched eye open or closed. We investigated the influence of eye open/eye closure on the unpatched eye's contrast sensitivity and ocular dominance (OD) shifts induced by short-term monocular deprivation. The results demonstrate that internal neural states influence not only baseline contrast sensitivity but also the extent to which the adult visual system can undergo changes in ocular dominance.

The shift in sensory eye dominance from short-term monocular deprivation exhibits no dependence on test spatial frequency

Background

Studies have shown that short-term monocular deprivation induces a shift in sensory eye dominance in favor of the deprived eye. Yet, how short-term monocular deprivation modulates sensory eye dominance across spatial frequency is not clear. To address this issue, we conducted a study to investigate the dependence of short-term monocular deprivation effect on test spatial frequency.

Methods

Ten healthy young adults (age: 24.7 ± 1.7 years, four males) with normal vision participated. We deprived their dominant eye with a translucent patch for 2.5 h. The interocular contrast ratio (dominant eye/non-dominant eye, i.e., the balance point [BP]), which indicates the contribution that the two eyes make to binocular combination, was measured using a binocular orientation combination task. We assessed if BPs at 0.5, 4 or 6 cycles/degree (c/d) change as a result of monocular deprivation. Different test spatial frequency conditions were conducted on three separate days in a random fashion.

Results

We compared the BPs at 0.5, 4 and 6 c/d before and after monocular deprivation. The BPs were found to be significantly affected by deprivation, where sensory eye dominance shift to the deprived eye (F_{1.86, 16.76} = 33.09, P < 0.001). The changes of BP were consistent at 0.5, 4, and 6 c/d spatial frequencies (F_2,18 = 0.15, P = 0.57).

Conclusion

The sensory eye dominance plasticity induced by short-term deprivation is not dependent on test spatial frequency, suggesting it could provide a practical solution for amblyopic therapy that was concerned with the binocular outcome.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40662-022-00303-4.

A brief light reduction induces a significant delay in the previously dimmed eye

PURPOSE

We investigated how a short-term luminance reduction in one eye can influence temporal processing of that eye after luminance is restored by measuring the relative delay between the eyes.

METHODS

A paradigm based on the Pulfrich effect, which is a visual illusion of depth when no depth cue is present, was used to measure relative delay in visual processing between the eyes. We deprived the monocular luminance in adults with normal vision across different intensities. In the first experiment, the ratio of the light level between the eyes stayed constant, whereas the absolute value was allowed to vary. In the second experiment, both the ratio and the absolute light level stayed constant, by controlling the environmental light level. In both experiments, we measured the changes in relative delay before and after 60 min of light deprivation.

RESULTS

Our results indicated that short-term monocular deprivation of luminance slows the processing in the previously dimmed eye and that the magnitude of the delay is correlated with the degree of luminance reduction. In addition, we observed that the absolute luminance difference, rather than the absolute luminance levels seen by the dimmed eye, is important in determining the magnitude of delay in the previously dimmed eye. These findings differ from what has been reported previously for the monocular deprivation of contrast.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, these findings support the view that short-term deprivation of visual information could affect two distinct mechanisms (contrast gain and temporal dynamics) of neural plasticity.

The Mechanism of Short-Term Monocular Pattern Deprivation-Induced Perceptual Eye Dominance Plasticity

Previously published studies have reported that 150 min of short-term monocular deprivation temporarily changes perceptual eye dominance. However, the possible mechanisms underlying monocular deprivation-induced perceptual eye dominance plasticity remain unclear. Using a binocular phase and contrast co-measurement task and a multi-pathway contrast-gain control model (MCM), we studied the effect of 150 min of monocular pattern deprivation (MPD) in normal adult subjects. The perceived phase and contrast varied significantly with the interocular contrast ratio, and after MPD, the patched eye (PE) became dominant. Most importantly, we focused on the potential mechanisms of the deprivation effect. The data of an averaged subject was best fitted by a model, which assumed a monocular signal enhancement of the PE after the MPD. The present findings might have important implications for investigations of binocular vision in both normal and amblyopic populations.

Exercise alone impacts short-term adult visual neuroplasticity in a monocular deprivation paradigm

Adult homeostatic visual plasticity can be induced by short-term patching, heralded by a shift in ocular dominance in favor of the deprived eye after monocular occlusion. The potential to boost visual neuroplasticity with environmental enrichment such as exercise has also been explored; however, the results are inconsistent, with some studies finding no additive effect of exercise. Studies to date have only considered the effect of patching alone or in combination with exercise. Whether exercise alone affects typical outcome measures of experimental estimates of short-term visual neuroplasticity is unknown. We therefore measured binocular rivalry in 20 healthy young adults (20–34 years old) at baseline and after three 2-hour interventions: patching (of the dominant eye) only, patching with exercise, and exercise only. Consistent with previous work, the patching interventions produced a shift in ocular dominance toward the deprived (dominant) eye. Mild- to moderate-intensity exercise in the absence of patching had several effects on binocular rivalry metrics, including a reduction in the dominant eye percept. The proportion of mixed percept and the time to first switch (onset rivalry) did not change from baseline across all interventions. Thus, we demonstrate that exercise alone can impact binocular rivalry outcomes measures. We did not observe a synergistic effect between patching and exercise in our data.

Some psychophysical tasks measure ocular dominance plasticity more reliably than others

In the recent decade, studies have shown that short-term monocular deprivation strengthens the deprived eye's contribution to binocular vision. However, the magnitude of the change in eye dominance after monocular deprivation (i.e., the patching effect) has been found to be different between different methods and within the same method. There are three possible explanations for the discrepancy. First, the mechanisms underlying the patching effect that are probed by different measurement tasks might exist at different neural sites. Second, the test–retest variability of the same test can produce inconsistent results. Third, the magnitude of the patching effect itself within the same observer can vary across separate days or experimental sessions. To explore these possibilities, we assessed the test–retest reliability of the three most commonly used tasks (binocular rivalry, binocular combination, and dichoptic masking) and the repeatability of the shift in eye dominance after short-term monocular deprivation for each of the task. Two variations for binocular phase combination were used, at one and many contrasts of the stimuli. Also, two variations for dichoptic masking were employed; the orientation of the mask grating was either horizontal or vertical. Thus, five different tasks were evaluated. We hoped to resolve some of the inconsistencies reported in the literature concerning this form of visual plasticity. In this study, we also aimed to recommend a measurement method that would allow us to better understand its physiological basis and the underpinning of visual disorders.

The ups and downs of sensory eye balance: Monocular deprivation has a biphasic effect on interocular dominance

Classic studies of ocular dominance plasticity in early development showed that monocular deprivation suppresses the neural representation and visual function of the deprived eye. However, recent studies have shown that a short period of monocular deprivation (<3 h) in normal adult humans, shifts sensory eye dominance in favor of the deprived eye. How can these opposing effects be reconciled? Here we argue that there are two systems acting in opposition at different time scales. A fast acting, stabilizing, homeostatic system that rapidly decreases gain in the non-deprived eye or increases gain in the deprived eye, and a relatively sluggish system that shifts balance toward the non-deprived eye, in an effort to reduce input of little utility to active vision. If true, then continuous deprivation should produce a biphasic effect on interocular balance, first shifting balance away from the non-deprived eye, then towards it. Here we investigated the time course of the deprivation effect by monocularly depriving typical adults for 10 h and conducting tests of sensory eye balance at six intervening time points. Consistent with previous short-term deprivation work, we found shifts in sensory eye dominance away from the non-deprived eye up until approximately 5 h. We then observed a turning point, with balance shifting back towards the non-deprived eye, -, a biphasic effect. We argue that this turning point marks where the rapid homeostatic response saturates and is overtaken by the slower system responsible for suppressing monocular input of limited utility.

Brief localised monocular deprivation in adults alters binocular rivalry predominance retinotopically and reduces spatial inhibition

Short-term deprivation (2.5 h) of an eye has been shown to boost its relative ocular dominance in young adults. Here, we show that a much shorter deprivation period (3–6 min) produces a similar paradoxical boost that is retinotopic and reduces spatial inhibition on neighbouring, non-deprived areas. Partial deprivation was conducted in the left hemifield, central vision or in an annular region, later assessed with a binocular rivalry tracking procedure. Post-deprivation, dominance of the deprived eye increased when rivalling images were within the deprived retinotopic region, but not within neighbouring, non-deprived areas where dominance was dependent on the correspondence between the orientation content of the stimuli presented in the deprived and that of the stimuli presented in non-deprived areas. Together, these results accord with other deprivation studies showing V1 activity changes and reduced GABAergic inhibition.

Can Short-Term Ocular Dominance Plasticity Provide a General Index to Visual Plasticity to Personalize Treatment in Amblyopia?

Purpose

Recently, Lunghi et al. (2016) showed that amblyopic eye’s visual acuity per se after 2 months of occlusion therapy could be predicted by a homeostatic plasticity, that is, the temporary shift of perceptual eye dominance observed after a 2-h monocular deprivation, in children with anisometropic amblyopia. In this study, we assess whether the visual acuity improvement of the amblyopic eye measured after 2 months of occlusion therapy could be predicted by this plasticity.

Methods

Seven children (6.86 ± 1.46 years old; SD) with anisometropic amblyopia participated in this study. All patients were newly diagnosed and had no treatment history before participating in our study. They finished 2 months of refractive adaptation and then received a 4-h daily fellow eye patching therapy with an opaque patch for a 2-month period. Best-corrected visual acuity of the amblyopic eye was measured before and after the patching therapy. The homeostatic plasticity was assessed by measuring the temporary shift of perceptual eye dominance from 2-h occlusion of the amblyopic eye before treatment. A binocular phase combination paradigm was used for this study.

Results

We found that there was no significant correlation between the temporary shift of perceptual eye dominance observed after 2-h occlusion of the amblyopic eye and the improvement in visual acuity in the amblyopic eye from 2 months of classical patching therapy. This result, although in disagreements with the conclusions of Lunghi et al. involving the short-term patching of the amblyopic eye, is in fact consistent with a reanalysis of Lunghi and colleagues’ data.

Conclusion

The short-term changes in perceptual eye dominance as a result of short-term monocular deprivation do not provide an index of cortical plasticity in the general sense such that they are able to predict acuity outcomes from longer-term classical patching.

Action Video Gaming Does Not Influence Short-Term Ocular Dominance Plasticity in Visually Normal Adults

Action video gaming can promote neural plasticity. Short-term monocular patching drives neural plasticity in the visual system of human adults. For instance, short-term monocular patching of 0.5–5 h briefly enhances the patched eye’s contribution in binocular vision (i.e., short-term ocular dominance plasticity). In this study, we investigate whether action video gaming can influence this plasticity in adults with normal vision. We measured participants’ eye dominance using a binocular phase combination task before and after 2.5 h of monocular patching. Participants were asked to play action video games, watch action video game movies, or play non-action video games during the period of monocular patching. We found that participants’ change of ocular dominance after monocular patching was not significantly different either for playing action video games versus watching action video game movies (Comparison 1) or for playing action video games versus playing non-action video games (Comparison 2). These results suggest that action video gaming does not either boost or eliminate short-term ocular dominance plasticity, and that the neural site for this type of plasticity might be in the early visual pathway.

Patching and Suppression in Amblyopia: One Mechanism or Two?

Purpose

To determine if benefits from occlusion therapy are due to decreased suppression from the fellow eye in children with amblyopia.

Methods

Ten newly diagnosed amblyopes (7.2 ± 1.4 years old), two with strabismus and eight with anisometropia, participated. Patients were first given a 2-month period of refractive adaptation, followed by occlusion therapy (i.e., patching their fellow eye with an opaque patch for 4 h/day). Visual acuity of the amblyopic eye and interocular suppression were measured before and after 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 6 months of occlusion therapy. We quantified interocular suppression with a binocular phase combination task.

Results

Visual acuity (in logMAR) improved from 0.50 ± 0.22 (mean ± SD) to 0.33 ± 0.20 for patients who finished a short-term (2 months) occlusion (A1–A10), from 0.53 ± 0.20 to 0.32 ± 0.22 for patients who finished a medium-term (4 months) occlusion (A1–A9), and from 0.48 ± 0.19 to 0.22 ± 0.10 for patients who finished a long-term (6 months) occlusion (A1–A8). Although their visual acuity significantly improved, their degree of suppression, which was abnormal in all cases, did not change consistently. This was true in all durations of occlusion therapy.

Conclusion

Reduced suppression from the fixing eye might not be result from occlusion therapy.

Sensory Eye Dominance: Relationship Between Eye and Brain

Eye dominance refers to the preference to use one eye more than the fellow eye to accomplish a task. However, the dominant eye revealed can be task dependent especially when the tasks are as diverse as instructing the observer to sight a target through a ring, or to report which half-image is perceived more of during binocular rivalry stimulation. Conventionally, the former task is said to reveal motor eye dominance while the latter task reveals sensory eye dominance. While the consensus is that the motor and sensory-dominant eye could be different in some observers, the reason for it is still unclear and has not been much researched. This review mainly focuses on advances made in recent studies of sensory eye dominance. It reviews studies conducted to quantify and relate sensory eye dominance to other visual functions, in particular to stereopsis, as well as studies conducted to explore its plasticity. It is recognized that sensory eye dominance in observers with clinically normal vision shares some similarity with amblyopia at least at the behavioral level, in that both exhibit an imbalance of interocular inhibition. Furthermore, sensory eye dominance is probably manifested at multiple sites along the visual pathway, perhaps including the level of ocular dominance columns. But future studies with high-resolution brain imaging approaches are required to confirm this speculation in the human visual system.