Ocular dominance stability and reading skill: a controversial relationship

Cortical dynamics in visual areas induced by the first use of multifocal contact lenses in presbyopes

A common non-spectacle strategy to correct presbyopia is to provide simultaneous images with multifocal optical designs. Understanding the neuroadaptation mechanisms behind multifocal devices usage would have important clinical implications, such as predicting whether patients will be able to tolerate multifocal optics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the brain correlates during the initial wear of multifocal contact lenses (CLs) using high-density visual evoked potential (VEP) measures. Fifteen presbyopes (mean age 51.8 ± 2.6 years) who had previously not used multifocal CLs were enrolled. VEP measures were achieved while participants looked at arrays of 0.5 logMAR Sloan letters in three different optical conditions arranged with CLs: monofocal condition with the optical power appropriate for the distance viewing; multifocal correction with medium addition; and multifocal correction with low addition. An ANOVA for repeated measures showed that the amplitude of the C1 and N1 components significantly dropped with both multifocal low and medium addition CL conditions compared to monofocal CLs. The P1 and P2 components showed opposite behavior with an increase in amplitudes for multifocal compared to monofocal conditions. VEP data indicated that multifocal presbyopia corrections produce a loss of feedforward activity in the primary visual cortex that is compensated by extra feedback activity in extrastriate areas only, in both early and late visual processing.

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Evaluation and diagnosis

It is important to be able to measure the range of clear focus in clinical practice to advise on presbyopia correction techniques and to optimise the correction power. Both subjective and objective techniques are necessary: subjective techniques (such as patient reported outcome questionnaires and defocus curves) assess the impact of presbyopia on a patient and how the combination of residual objective accommodation and their natural DoF work for them; objective techniques (such as autorefraction, corneal topography and lens imaging) allow the clinician to understand how well a technique is working optically and whether it is the right choice or how adjustments can be made to optimise performance. Techniques to assess visual performance and adverse effects must be carefully conducted to gain a reliable end-point, considering the target size, contrast and illumination. Objective techniques are generally more reliable, can help to explain unexpected subjective results and imaging can be a powerful communication tool with patients. A clear diagnosis, excluding factors such as binocular vision issues or digital eye strain that can also cause similar symptoms, is critical for the patient to understand and adapt to presbyopia. Some corrective options are more permanent, such as implanted inlays / intraocular lenses or laser refractive surgery, so the optics can be trialled with contact lenses in advance (including differences between the eyes) to better communicate with the patient how the optics will work for them so they can make an informed choice.

Ocular dominance in cataract surgery: research status and progress

Ocular dominance (OD), a commonly used concept in clinical practice, plays an important role in optometry and refractive surgery. With the development of refractive cataract surgery, the refractive function of the intraocular lens determines the achievement of the postoperative full range of vision based on the retinal defocus blur suppression and binocular monovision principle. Therefore, OD plays an important role in cataract surgery. OD is related to the visual formation of the cerebral cortex, and its plasticity suggests that visual experience can influence the visual system. Cataract surgery changes the visual experience and transforms the dominant eye, which confirms the plasticity of the visual system. Based on the concept and mechanism of OD, this review summarizes the application of OD in cataract surgery.

Does blue-violet filtering in contact lenses improve contrast sensitivity?

PURPOSE

The work is aimed at (i) comparing photopic contrast sensitivity (CS) of healthy subjects in an indoor environment with either blue-violet filtering (BVF) or clear contact lenses (CLs) and (ii) investigating a possible dependence of the CS variation on the subjects' intrinsic CS, measured with clear CLs.

METHODS

Optical transmittance of BVF and clear CLs was measured by a spectrophotometer. Photopic CS was measured monocularly on forty-one subjects (nineteen in the age range 20-36 years and twenty-two in the age range 44-66 years) by a digital optotype system at spatial frequencies from 1.5 to 18 cpd, wearing either clear or BVF CLs. The results are indicated as CS_clear and CS_BVF, respectively.

RESULTS

Transmittance curves in the visible range of the two CLs are very similar, despite an absorption band in the BVF CL spectrum with the minimum of transmittance at 428 ± 4 nm equal to about 79%. For both CS_clear and CS_BVF, no significant CS difference was found between younger and older adults. The difference [log(CS_BVF) - log(CS_clear)] showed a decreasing trend and changed sign from positive to negative as a function of log(CS_clear) with correlation Spearman's Rho coefficients ranging from 0.80 to 0.88 (p < 0.01 at all spatial frequencies).

CONCLUSION

In the choice of a BVF CL, practitioners should take into consideration that it can influence photopic CS, improving it for subjects who have a relatively low CS with clear CLs, and worsening it for subjects who have a relatively high CS with clear CLs. BVF can affect positively the CS by reducing intraocular scattering. However, it can also cause a reduction in light intensity, which contributes to the formation of the retinal image. The positive or negative influence of BVF CLs compared to clear ones on CS is attributed to a balance among these effects.

The effect of ocular dominance on macular function: A pattern electroretinogram study

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of ocular dominance on pattern electroretinogram (PERG) recordings in the participants who have no ophthalmic diseases.

METHODS

One hundred and twelve eyes of 56 participants (mean age 32.96 ± 10.82 years) were included in this prospective, cross-sectional study. After detailed ophthalmological examination and determination of the ocular dominance with hole-in-a-card test, the PERG was performed to determine implicit time and amplitudes of P50 and N95.

RESULTS

There were no significant interocular differences in visual acuity, refractive error, or intraocular pressure (p > 0.05 for all). Thirty-six (64.3%) of the participants had ocular dominance in the right eye. The dominant eyes had significantly higher P50 amplitude than in the fellow nondominant eyes (6.90 µV in dominant vs 5.87 µV in nondominant; p = 0.015; 95% confidence interval). There was no significant difference in N95 amplitude, N95/P50 ratio, and implicit times of P50 and N95 between the dominant and nondominant eyes of the participants (p = 0.090, p = 0.124 p = 0.817, p = 0.668; respectively).

CONCLUSION

The analysis revealed a significantly increased P50 amplitude of the PERG, which is known to be highly associated with macular function, in dominant eyes of the patients when compared to fellow nondominant eyes.

Immediate cortical adaptation in visual and non-visual areas functions induced by monovision

KEY POINTS

Monovision is an optical correction for presbyopes that consists of correcting one eye for far distance and the other for near distance, creating a superimposition of an in-focus with a blurred image. Brain adaptation to monovision was studied in unexperienced observers by measuring visual evoked potentials from 64-channels. The first clear effect of monovision on visual evoked potentials was the C1 amplitude reduction, indicating that the unilateral blurring induced by monovision reduces feed-forward activity in primary visual area. Monovision led also to an increased amplitude of the P1 and pP1 components, with the latter originating in prefrontal regions. This effect probably works as an attentional compensatory activity used to compensate for the degraded V1 signal.

ABSTRACT

A common and often successful option to correct presbyopia with contact lenses is monovision. This is an unbalanced correction across the two eyes where one eye is corrected for far vision and the other eye is corrected for near vision. Monovision is therefore a form of acquired anisometropia that causes a superimposition of an in-focus image with a blurred image. In spite of this visual anisometropia, monovision has been successfully used for many decadesl however the brain mechanism supporting monovision is not well understood. The present study aimed to measure the visual evoked potentials with a high-density electrode array (64-channel) in a group of presbyopes and to provide a detailed spatiotemporal analysis of the cortical activity after a short period of adaptation to monovision with contact lenses. When compared with a balanced eye near correction, monovision produced both a clear reduction of the earliest visual evoked potential components, the C1 and the N1, and an amplitude increase of the P1 and pP1. These results indicate that the unilateral blurring induced by wearing monovision contact lenses reduces feed-forward activity in the primary visual area and feedback activity in extrastriate areas (C1 and N1 reduction). Interestingly, other brain activities in both extrastriate visual areas (the P1 component) and in the anterior insula (the pP1 component) appear to compensate for this dysfunction, increasing their activity during monovision. These changes confirm the presence of fluid brain adaptation in visual and non-visual areas during monocular interferences.

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.

Ocular dominance and visual function testing

Purpose. To show the distribution of ocular dominance as measured with sensory and eye sighting methods and its potential relationship with high and low contrast LogMAR visual acuity in presbyopic subjects. Method. Forty-four presbyopes (48.5 ± 3.5 years) participated in this study. Ocular dominance was determined by eye sighting (hole-in-card) and sensorial (+1.50 D lens induced blur) methods. According to the dominance detected with each method (RE: right eye or LE: left eye), patients were classified in dominance type 1 (RE/RE), type 2 (RE/LE), type 3 (LE/RE) and type 4 (LE/LE). Results. Baseline refractive error (MSE) was RE:−0.36 ± 1.67 D and LE:−0.35 ± 1.85 D (P = 0.930). RE was the dominant eye in 61.4% and 70.5% of times as obtained from sensorial and sighting methods, respectively. Most frequent dominance was of type 1 (52.3%), in this case the RE showed statistically significant better distance low contrast LogMAR VA (0.04 LogMAR units) compared to the LE (P < 0.05). Conclusions. The dominance was more frequent in RE in this sample. The eye sighting and sensorial methods to define ocular dominance agreed in more than half of cases. Amount of MSE was not significantly different between dominant and non-dominant eye. But in case of right dominance, the RE presented better distance low contrast VA compared to the LE.