Vision research: losing sight of eye dominance

Sequelae of carbide-related thermo-chemical injury: A retrospective analysis

Purpose

To describe the outcomes of eyes with calcium carbide (CaC2)-related thermo-chemical injury.

Methods

This study included 28 eyes of 23 patients who presented with calcium carbide-related ocular burns. Only patients with more than three months of follow-up were included. Group A included 16 eyes with Dua's Grade I-III burns, while Group B included 12 eyes with Grade IV-VI burns. Electronic medical records were reviewed to provide data on the etiology of burn, presenting clinical signs and visual acuity, sequelae, and surgical interventions performed, both in the acute and chronic phases.

Results

The overall mean age was 28.48 ± 11.8 years. Fifteen patients were injured while using carbide to create an explosion to scare away animals on farms. The median presenting BCVA (best-corrected visual acuity) in Group A (20/160) was significantly better than in Group B [(20/2000) (P = 0.002)]. Five eyes in Group A and one eye in Group B underwent medical management. There was no difference in the duration of follow-up for both groups (P = 0.24). The median final BCVA in Group A (20/32) was significantly better than in Group B [(20/200) (P = 0.02)]. Two eyes in Group A and nine eyes in Group B developed LSCD. Two eyes in Group B were phthisical at the last visit.

Conclusion

Calcium carbide-related ocular injuries can result in significant visual morbidity in young adults. Early presentation and management may improve outcomes. Prevention of these injuries by increasing awareness and increasing advocacy efforts is necessary.

Distractor-induced saccade trajectory curvature reveals visual contralateral bias with respect to the dominant eye

The functional consequences of the visual system lateralization referred to as "eye dominance" remain poorly understood. We previously reported shorter hand reaction times for targets appearing in the contralateral visual hemifield with respect to the dominant eye (DE). Here, we further explore this contralateral bias by studying the influence of laterally placed visual distractors on vertical saccade trajectories, a sensitive method to assess visual processing. In binocular conditions, saccade trajectory curvature was larger toward a distractor placed in the contralateral hemifield with respect to the DE (e.g., in the left visual hemifield for a participant with a right dominant eye) than toward one presented in the ipsilateral hemifield (in the right visual hemifield in our example). When two distractors were present at the same time, the vertical saccade showed curvature toward the contralateral side. In monocular conditions, when one distractor was presented, a similar larger influence of the contralateral distractor was observed only when the viewing eye was the DE. When the non dominant eye (NDE) was viewing, curvature was symmetric for both distractor sides. Interestingly, this curvature was as large as the one obtained for the contralateral distractor when the DE was viewing, suggesting that eye dominance consequences rely on inhibition mechanisms present when the DE is viewing. Overall, these results demonstrate that DE influences visual integration occurring around saccade production and support a DE-based contralateral visual bias.

How Ocular Dominance and Binocularity Are Reflected by the Population Receptive Field Properties

Purpose

The neural substrate of binocularity and sighting ocular dominance in humans is not clear. By utilizing the population receptive field (pRF) modeling technique, we explored whether these phenomena are associated with amplitude and pRF size differences.

Methods

The visual field maps of 13 subjects were scanned (3-T Skyra) while viewing drifting bar stimuli. Both eyes (binocular condition), the dominant eye and the nondominant eye (two monocular conditions) were stimulated in separate sessions. For each condition, pRF size and amplitude were assessed. Binocular summation ratios were calculated by dividing binocular by mean monocular values (amplitude and pRF size).

Results

No differences in pRF size were seen between the viewing conditions within each region, that is, either between binocular and monocular or between dominant and nondominant viewing conditions. Binocular amplitudes were higher than the monocular amplitudes, but similar among the dominant and nondominant eyes. Binocular summation ratios derived from amplitudes were significantly higher than one (∼1.2), while those ratios derived from pRF size were not. These effects were found in all studied areas along the visual hierarchy, starting in V1.

Conclusions

Neither the amplitude nor the pRF size show intereye difference and therefore cannot explain the different roles of the dominant and the nondominant eyes. Binocular, as compared to monocular vision, resulted in higher amplitudes, while receptive fields' sizes were similar, suggesting increased binocular response intensity as the basis for the binocular summation phenomenon. Our results could be applicable in imaging studies of monocular disease and studies that deal with nondisparity binocularity effects.

Trunk rotation affects temporal order judgments with direct saccades: Influence of handedness

Manipulation of the trunk midline has been shown to improve visuospatial performance in patients with unilateral visual neglect. The goal of the present study was to disentangle motor and perceptual components of egocentric midline manipulations and to investigate the contribution of individual hand preference. Two versions of visual temporal order judgment (TOJ) tasks were tested in healthy right- and left-handed subjects while trunk rotation was varied. In the congruent version, subjects were required to execute a saccade to the first of two horizontal stimuli presented with different stimulus onset asynchronies (SOA). In the incongruent version, subjects were required to perform a vertical saccade to a pre-learned color target, thereby dissociating motor response from the perceptual stimulus location. The main findings of this study are a trunk rotation and response direction specific impact on temporal judgments in form of a prior entry bias for right hemifield stimuli during rightward trunk rotation, but only in the congruent task. This trunk rotation-induced spatial bias was most pronounced in left-handed participants but had the same sign in the right-handed group. Results suggest that egocentric midline shifts in healthy subjects induce a spatially-specific motor, but not a perceptual, bias and underline the importance of taking individual differences in functional laterality such as handedness and mode of perceptual report into account when evaluating effects of trunk rotation in either healthy subjects or neurological patients.

The role of sensory ocular dominance on through-focus visual performance in monovision presbyopia corrections

Monovision presbyopia interventions exploit the binocular nature of the visual system by independently manipulating the optical properties of the two eyes. It is unclear, however, how individual variations in ocular dominance affect visual function in monovision corrections. Here, we examined the impact of sensory ocular dominance on visual performance in both traditional and modified monovision presbyopic corrections. We recently developed a binocular adaptive optics vision simulator to correct subjects' native aberrations and induce either modified monovision (1.5 D anisometropia, spherical aberration of +0.1 and -0.4 μm in distance and near eyes, respectively, over 4 mm pupils) or traditional monovision (1.5 D anisometropia). To quantify both the sign and the degree of ocular dominance, we utilized binocular rivalry to estimate stimulus contrast ratios that yield balanced dominance durations for the two eyes. Through-focus visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were measured under two conditions: (a) assigning dominant and nondominant eye to distance and near, respectively, and (b) vice versa. The results revealed that through-focus visual acuity was unaffected by ocular dominance. Contrast sensitivity, however, was significantly improved when the dominant eye coincided with superior optical quality. We hypothesize that a potential mechanism behind this observation is an interaction between ocular dominance and binocular contrast summation, and thus, assignment of the dominant eye to distance or near may be an important factor to optimize contrast threshold performance at different object distances in both modified and traditional monovision.

Looking at eye dominance from a different angle: is sighting strength related to hand preference?

Sighting dominance (the behavioural preference for one eye over the other under monocular viewing conditions) has traditionally been thought of as a robust individual trait. However, Khan and Crawford (2001) have shown that, under certain viewing conditions, eye preference reverses as a function of horizontal gaze angle. Remarkably, the reversal of sighting from one eye to the other depends on which hand is used to reach out and grasp the target. Their procedure provides an ideal way to measure the strength of monocular preference for sighting, which may be related to other indicators of hemispheric specialisation for speech, language and motor function. Therefore, we hypothesised that individuals with consistent side preferences (e.g., right hand, right eye) should have more robust sighting dominance than those with crossed lateral preferences. To test this idea, we compared strength of eye dominance in individuals who are consistently right or left sided for hand and foot preference with those who are not. We also modified their procedure in order to minimise a potential image size confound, suggested by Banks et al. (2004) as an explanation of Khan and Crawford's results. We found that the sighting dominance switch occurred at similar eccentricities when we controlled for effects of hand occlusion and target size differences. We also found that sighting dominance thresholds change predictably with the hand used. However, we found no evidence for relationships between strength of hand preference as assessed by questionnaire or by pegboard performance and strength of sighting dominance. Similarly, participants with consistent hand and foot preferences did not show stronger eye preference as assessed using the Khan and Crawford procedure. These data are discussed in terms of indirect relationships between sighting dominance, hand preference and cerebral specialisation for language and motor control.

Lateralidade manual, ocular e dos membros inferiores e sua relação com déficit de organização espacial em escolares

Este estudo teve por objetivos: 1) verificar se existe associação entre lateralidade manual, ocular e dos membros inferiores e déficit de organização espacial em escolares; 2) categorizar as variações de lateralidade nesta população. A amostra foi constituída de 400 crianças na faixa etária de 6 a 10 anos de escolas públicas e privadas da cidade de João Pessoa (PB). A lateralidade e a organização espacial foram avaliadas, respectivamente, por meio do Harris Test of Lateral Dominance e da Bateria de Piaget-Head. Os resultados evidenciaram 23 tipos de lateralidade mão-olho-pé, observando-se maior percentual (48,75%) de destralidade completa (dominância manual, ocular e dos membros inferiores direita). Houve associação significativa (p<0,05) entre sinistralidade completa e déficit de organização espacial. Os resultados atentam para a importância de se inserirem no cotidiano escolar programas de estimulação motora voltados à lateralidade e à organização espacial das crianças, como forma de prevenir distorções no seu processo de aprendizagem.

Interaction of Hand Preference with Eye Dominance on Accuracy in Archery

In this study, the interaction of hand preference, eye dominance, and performance in archery was investigated. Beginners' accuracy (right-handed French students (48 men, 34 women) from the University of Sport Sciences ( M age = 19.3 yr., SD = 1.7 yr.), were tested and 1,323 practitioners were given a laterality questionnaire. Analysis suggested the interaction of hand preference and eye dominance might influence accuracy of the novice archers (uncrossed patterns were more accurate) when the bow was used without sights, but the use of sights by practitioners seemed to eliminate this effect.

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.

Monovision: a review

In presbyopia, patients can no longer obtain clear vision at distance and near. Monovision is a method of correcting presbyopia where one eye is focussed for distance vision and the other for near. Monovision is a fairly common method of correcting presbyopia with contact lenses and has received renewed interest with the increase in refractive surgery. The present paper is a review of the literature on monovision. The success rate of monovision in adapted contact lens wearers is 59-67%. The main limitations are problems with suppressing the blurred image when driving at night and the need for a third focal length, for example with computer screens at intermediate distances. Stereopsis is impaired in monovision, but most patients do not seem to notice this. These limitations highlight the need to take account of occupational factors. Monovision could cause a binocular vision anomaly to decompensate, so the pre-fitting screening should include an assessment of orthoptic function. Various methods have been used to determine which eye should be given the distance vision contact lens and the literature on tests of ocular dominance is reviewed. It is concluded that tests of blur suppression are most likely to be relevant, but that ocular dominance is not fixed but is rather a fluid, adaptive, phenomenon in most patients. Suitable patients can often be given trial lenses that allow them to experiment with monovision in real world situations and this can be a useful way of revealing the preferred eye for each distance. Of course, no patient should drive or operate machinery until successfully adapted to monovision. Surgically induced monovision is less easily reversed than contact lens-induced monovision, and is only appropriate after a successful trial of monovision with contact lenses.

The absence of lateral congruency between sighting dominance and the eye with better visual acuity

The notion that in subjects with normal binocular vision (i.e. non-strabismic cases) the eye showing sighting dominance will also most likely be that individual's better-sighted eye has proved to be persistent. A review and analysis of the literature has now demonstrated, across several population groups, the fallacy of this belief. In fact, the occurrence of lateral congruency between sighting dominance and the eye with better visual acuity is at a statistical level no greater than chance would predict. Some clinical implications of this outcome are considered.

Eye dominance predicts fMRI signals in human retinotopic cortex

There have been many attempts to define eye dominance in normal subjects, but limited consensus exists, and relevant physiological data is scarce. In this study, we consider two different behavioral methods for assignment of eye dominance, and how well they predict fMRI signals evoked by monocular stimulation. Sighting eye dominance was assessed with two standard tests, the Porta Test, and a 'hole in hand' variation of the Miles Test. Acuity dominance was tested with a standard eye chart and with a computerized test of grating acuity. We found limited agreement between the sighting and acuity methods for assigning dominance in our individual subjects. We then compared the fMRI response generated by dominant eye stimulation to that generated by non-dominant eye, according to both methods, in 7 normal subjects. The stimulus consisted of a high contrast hemifield stimulus alternating with no stimulus in a blocked paradigm. In separate scans, we used standard techniques to label the borders of visual areas V1, V2, V3, VP, V4v, V3A, and MT. These regions of interest (ROIs) were used to analyze each visual area separately. We found that percent change in fMRI BOLD signal was stronger for the dominant eye as defined by the acuity method, and this effect was significant for areas located in the ventral occipital territory (V1v, V2v, VP, V4v). In contrast, assigning dominance based on sighting produced no significant interocular BOLD differences. We conclude that interocular BOLD differences in normal subjects exist, and may be predicted by acuity measures.

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.

Gaze tracking accuracy in humans: Two eyes are better than one

Many people viewing a small distant object report the use of a dominant eye, which may change when viewing the same object in right or left viewing fields. This study was designed to determine if the accuracy in left and right gaze recordings from a video-based binocular eye tracking system with eye-head integration would change when observers looked at targets in different viewing fields. We also wanted to determine whether system accuracy was best using the dominant eye, the average of both eyes or an alignment switching strategy for various viewing fields. Bilateral eye and head movements were recorded to determine point of gaze (POG) for subjects viewing targets with the head neutral or rotated left or right with a stationary body (static) or while stepping toward a target and back (dynamic). Constant, absolute and variable POG and rotational errors were determined. Results showed that although errors were highest in the static condition for POG errors and in the dynamic condition for rotational errors, absolute rotational angle errors were similar for static and dynamic conditions, indicating that subject to object distance played an important role in determining POG errors. Furthermore, errors were not consistently lower for a given eye or for a given eye within a specific viewing field for the head rotations performed. Since low errors across the viewing fields were found by averaging left and right errors, it was concluded that this average and should be used in future studies involving relatively small eye-in-head rotations.

Temporal characteristics of binocular rivalry: visual field asymmetries

Very little is known about the mechanisms that drive the alternation between the two views during binocular rivalry. A key property of the rivalry process is the rate at which the two views alternate. Understanding the factors that affect the rate of the alternation is critical to the final understanding of the underlying process. Using a circular and a radial grating as the rivalry stimuli, we observed a significantly faster binocular rivalry when stimuli were presented in the right visual field than that in the left visual field for the right-handed observers, and a reversed asymmetry for the left-handed observers. In both groups, rivalry was faster for stimuli presented in the lower visual field than that in the upper visual field. This pattern of results suggests that (1) rivalry is likely a locally driven process and (2) the visual brain in the left hemisphere may be the faster one of the two hemispheres in right-handed people.

What does the dominant eye dominate? A brief and somewhat contentious review

We examine a set of implicit and explicit claims about the concept of eye dominance that have been made over the years and note that the new literature on eye dominance does not reflect the old literature from the first half of the last century. We argue that the visual and oculomotor function of the dominant eye--defined by such criteria as asymmetry in acuity, rivalry, or sighting--remains unknown and that the usefulness of the concept for understanding its function is yet to be determined. We suggest that the sighting-dominant eye is the eye used for monocular tasks and has no unique functional role in vision.