Binocular rivalry with peripheral prisms used for hemianopia rehabilitation

Review: Binocular double vision in the presence of visual field loss

Binocular double vision in strabismus is marked by diplopia (seeing the same object in two different directions) and visual confusion (seeing two different objects in the same direction). In strabismus with full visual field, the diplopia coexists with visual confusion across most of the binocular field. With visual field loss, or with use of partial prism segments for field expansion, the two phenomena may be separable. This separability is the focus of this review and offers new insights into binocular function. We show that confusion is necessary but is not sufficient for field expansion. Diplopia plays no role in field expansion but is necessary for clinical testing of strabismus, making such testing difficult in field loss conditions with confusion without diplopia. The roles of the three-dimensional structure of the real world and the dynamic of eye movements within that structure are considered as well. Suppression of one eye's partial view under binocular vision that develops in early-onset (childhood) strabismus is assumed to be a sensory adaption to diplopia. This assumption can be tested using the separation of diplopia and confusion.

2017 Charles F. Prentice Award Lecture: Peripheral Prisms for Visual Field Expansion: A Translational Journey

On the occasion of being awarded the Prentice Medal, I was asked to summarize my translational journey. Here I describe the process of becoming a low-vision rehabilitation clinician and researcher, frustrated by the unavailability of effective treatments for some conditions. This led to decades of working to understand patients' needs and the complexities and subtleties of their visual systems and conditions. It was followed by many iterations of developing vision aids and the techniques needed to objectively evaluate their benefit. I specifically address one path: the invention and development of peripheral prisms to expand the visual fields of patients with homonymous hemianopia, leading to our latest multiperiscopic prism (mirror-based design) with its clear 45° field-of-view image shift.

Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently

Classical sighting or sensory tests are used in clinical practice to identify the dominant eye. Several psychophysical tests were recently proposed to quantify the magnitude of dominance but whether their results agree was never investigated. We addressed this question for the two most common psychophysical tests: The perceived-phase test, which measures the cyclopean appearance of dichoptically presented sinusoids of different phase, and the coherence-threshold test, which measures interocular differences in motion perception when signal and noise stimuli are presented dichoptically. We also checked for agreement with three classical tests (Worth 4-dot, Randot suppression, and Bagolini lenses). Psychophysical tests were administered in their conventional form and also using more dependable psychophysical methods. The results showed weak correlations between psychophysical measures of strength of dominance with inconsistent identification of the dominant eye across tests: Agreement on left-eye dominance, right-eye dominance, or nondominance by both tests occurred only for 11 of 40 observers (27.5%); the remaining 29 observers were classified differently by each test, including 14 cases (35%) of opposite classification (left-eye dominance by one test and right-eye dominance by the other). Classical tests also yielded conflicting results that did not agree well with classification based on psychophysical tests. The results are discussed in the context of determination of ocular dominance for clinical decisions.

Driving With Hemianopia VI: Peripheral Prisms and Perceptual-Motor Training Improve Detection in a Driving Simulator

Purpose

Drivers with homonymous hemianopia (HH) were previously found to have impaired detection of blind-side hazards, yet in many jurisdictions they may obtain a license. We evaluated whether oblique 57Δ peripheral prisms (p-prisms) and perceptual-motor training improved blind-side detection rates.

Methods

Patients with HH (n = 11) wore p-prisms for 2 weeks and then received perceptual-motor training (six visits) detecting and touching stimuli in the prism-expanded vision. In a driving simulator, patients drove and pressed the horn upon detection of pedestrians who ran toward the roadway (26 from each side): (1) without p-prisms at baseline; (2) with p-prisms after 2 weeks acclimation but before training; (3) with p-prisms after training; and (4) 3 months later.

Results

P-prisms improved blind-side detection from 42% to 56%, which further improved after training to 72% (all P < 0.001). Blind-side timely responses (adequate time to have stopped) improved from 31% without to 44% with p-prisms (P < 0.001) and further improved with training to 55% (P = 0.02). At the 3-month follow-up, improvements from training were maintained for detection (65%; P = 0.02) but not timely responses (P = 0.725). There was wide between-subject variability in baseline detection performance and response to p-prisms. There were no negative effects of p-prisms on vehicle control or seeing-side performance.

Conclusions

P-prisms improved detection with no negative effects, and training may provide additional benefit.

Translational Relevance

In jurisdictions where people with HH are legally driving, these data aid in clinical decision making by providing evidence that p-prisms improve performance without negative effects.

Multiplexing Prisms for Field Expansion

PURPOSE

Prisms used for field expansion are limited by the optical scotoma at a prism apex (apical scotoma). For a patient with two functioning eyes, fitting prisms unilaterally allows the other eye to compensate for the apical scotoma. A monocular patient's field loss cannot be expanded with a conventional or Fresnel prism because of the apical scotoma. A newly invented optical device, the multiplexing prism (MxP), was developed to overcome the apical scotoma limitation in monocular field expansion.

METHODS

A Fresnel-prism-like device with alternating prism and flat elements superimposes shifted and see-through views, thus creating the (monocular) visual confusion required for field expansion and eliminating the apical scotoma. Several implementations are demonstrated and preliminarily evaluated for different monocular conditions with visual field loss. The field expansion of the MxP is compared with the effect of conventional prisms using calculated and measured perimetry.

RESULTS

Field expansion without apical scotomas is shown to be effective for monocular patients with hemianopia or constricted peripheral field. The MxPs are shown to increase the nasal field for a patient with only one eye and for patients with bitemporal hemianopia. The MxPs placed at the far temporal field are shown to expand the normal visual field. The ability to control the contrast ratio between the two images is verified.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel optical device is demonstrated to have the potential for field expansion technology in a variety of conditions. The devices may be inexpensive and can be constructed in a cosmetically acceptable format.

Review of rehabilitation and habilitation strategies for children and young people with homonymous visual field loss caused by cerebral vision impairment

Partial and homonymous visual field loss (HVFL) is a common consequence of post-chiasmatic injury to the primary visual pathway or injury to the primary visual cortex. Different approaches to rehabilitation have been reported for older adults with HVFL and there is evidence to support the use of compensatory training over other proposed therapies. We reviewed the literature to investigate the current state of the art of rehabilitation and habilitation strategies for children and young people with HVFL, and whether there is enough evidence to support the use of these strategies in the paediatric population. We have provided an overview of the existing literature on children and young people with HVFL, a brief overview of rehabilitation strategies for adults with HVFL, and evidence on whether these different interventions have been applied with children and young people effectively. We found that there have been very few studies to investigate these strategies with children and young people, and the quality of evidence is currently low. New research is required to evaluate which strategies are effective for children and young people with HVFL and whether new strategies need to be developed.

Peripheral prism glasses: effects of moving and stationary backgrounds

PURPOSE

Unilateral peripheral prisms for homonymous hemianopia (HH) expand the visual field through peripheral binocular visual confusion, a stimulus for binocular rivalry that could lead to reduced predominance and partial suppression of the prism image, thereby limiting device functionality. Using natural-scene images and motion videos, we evaluated whether detection was reduced in binocular compared with monocular viewing.

METHODS

Detection rates of nine participants with HH or quadranopia and normal binocularity wearing peripheral prisms were determined for static checkerboard perimetry targets briefly presented in the prism expansion area and the seeing hemifield. Perimetry was conducted under monocular and binocular viewing with targets presented over videos of real-world driving scenes and still frame images derived from those videos.

RESULTS

With unilateral prisms, detection rates in the prism expansion area were significantly lower in binocular than in monocular (prism eye) viewing on the motion background (medians, 13 and 58%, respectively, p = 0.008) but not the still frame background (medians, 63 and 68%, p = 0.123). When the stimulus for binocular rivalry was reduced by fitting prisms bilaterally in one HH and one normally sighted subject with simulated HH, prism-area detection rates on the motion background were not significantly different (p > 0.6) in binocular and monocular viewing.

CONCLUSIONS

Conflicting binocular motion appears to be a stimulus for reduced predominance of the prism image in binocular viewing when using unilateral peripheral prisms. However, the effect was only found for relatively small targets. Further testing is needed to determine the extent to which this phenomenon might affect the functionality of unilateral peripheral prisms in more real-world situations.