Reading with central vision loss: binocular summation and inhibition

What Is a Preferred Retinal Locus?

This review examines the concept of the preferred retinal locus (PRL) in patients with macular diseases. Considering monocular and binocular viewing, we (a) explain how to identify the PRL and discuss the pitfalls associated with its measurement, (b) review the current hypotheses for PRL development, (c) assess whether the PRL is the new reference point of the ocular motor system, and discuss (d) the functional and (e) the clinical implications of the PRL. We conclude that the current definition of the PRL is probably incomplete and should incorporate the need to evaluate the PRL in the framework of binocular viewing. We emphasize the need for more research.

Binocular metamorphopsia in patients with branch retinal vein occlusion: a multi-center study

PURPOSE

The pathology of branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), a retinal circulatory disease, is related to monocular metamorphopsia-related vision impairment of the affected eyes, but the association of binocular metamorphopsia in such patients is unclear. This study aimed to examine the frequency of binocular metamorphopsia and its association with the clinical characteristics of patients with BRVO.

METHODS

A total of 87 patients who were treated for BRVO-associated macular edema (ME) were included in this study. At baseline and 1 and 3 months after the initiation of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment, we quantified metamorphopsia in the affected eyes and binocular metamorphopsia using the M-CHARTS^® diagnostic tool.

RESULTS

At baseline, 53 and 7 patients had metamorphopsia in the affected eyes and binocular metamorphopsia, respectively. Although the visual acuity improved significantly after the initiation of anti-VEGF treatment, the mean M-CHARTS score in the affected eyes did not change from the baseline score. At 3 months, 9 patients showed binocular metamorphopsia; it was significantly associated with metamorphopsia in the affected eyes with a 95% confidence interval of 0.021-0.122 (β = 0.306, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Metamorphopsia in the affected eyes can cause binocular metamorphopsia in patients with BRVO-ME.

Binocular visual function and fixational control in patients with macular disease: A review

For normally sighted observers, the centre of the macula—the fovea—provides the sharpest vision and serves as the reference point for the oculomotor system. Typically, healthy observers have precise oculomotor control and binocular visual performance that is superior to monocular performance. These functions are disturbed in patients with macular disease who lose foveal vision. An adaptation to central vision loss is the development of a preferred retinal locus (PRL) in the functional eccentric retina, which is determined with a fixation task during monocular viewing. Macular disease often affects the two eyes unequally, but its impact on binocular function and fixational control is poorly understood. Given that patients’ natural viewing condition is binocular, the aim of this article was to review current research on binocular visual function and fixational oculomotor control in macular disease. Our findings reveal that there is no overall binocular gain across a range of visual functions, although clear evidence exists for subgroups of patients who exhibit binocular summation or binocular inhibition, depending on the clinical characteristics of their two eyes. The monocular PRL of the better eye has different characteristics from that of the worse eye, but during binocular viewing the PRL of the better eye drives fixational control and may serve as the new reference position for the oculomotor system. We conclude that evaluating binocular function in patients with macular disease reveals important clinical aspects that otherwise cannot be determined solely from examining monocular functions, and can lead to better disease management and interventions.

Recent understanding of binocular vision in the natural environment with clinical implications

Technological advances in recent decades have allowed us to measure both the information available to the visual system in the natural environment and the rich array of behaviors that the visual system supports. This review highlights the tasks undertaken by the binocular visual system in particular and how, for much of human activity, these tasks differ from those considered when an observer fixates a static target on the midline. The everyday motor and perceptual challenges involved in generating a stable, useful binocular percept of the environment are discussed, together with how these challenges are but minimally addressed by much of current clinical interpretation of binocular function. The implications for new technology, such as virtual reality, are also highlighted in terms of clinical and basic research application.

Topical Review: Assessment of Binocular Sensory Processes in Low Vision

SIGNIFICANCE

This article summarizes the evidence for a higher prevalence of binocular vision dysfunctions in individuals with vision impairment. Assessment for and identification of binocular vision dysfunctions can detect individuals experiencing difficulties in activities including reading, object placement tasks, and mobility.Comprehensive vision assessment in low vision populations is necessary to identify the extent of remaining vision and to enable directed rehabilitation efforts. In patients with vision impairment, little attention is typically paid to assessments of binocular vision, including ocular vergence, stereopsis, and binocular summation characteristics. In addition, binocular measurements of threshold automated visual fields are not routinely performed in clinical practice, leading to an incomplete understanding of individuals' binocular visual field and may affect rehabilitation outcomes.First, this review summarizes the prevalence of dysfunctions in ocular vergence, stereopsis, and binocular summation characteristics across a variety of ocular pathologies causing vision impairment. Second, this review examines the links between clinical measurements of binocular visual functions and outcome measures including quality of life and performance in functional tasks. There is an increased prevalence of dysfunctions in ocular alignment, stereopsis, and binocular summation across low vision cohorts compared with those with normal vision. The identification of binocular vision dysfunctions during routine low vision assessments is especially important in patients experiencing difficulties in activities of daily living, including but not limited to reading, object placement tasks, and mobility. However, further research is required to determine whether addressing the identified deficits in binocular vision in low vision rehabilitative efforts directly impacts patient outcomes.

Reading with central vision loss: binocular summation and inhibition

Purpose

There are conflicting reports as to whether there is a binocular advantage or disadvantage when reading with central vision loss. This study examined binocular reading summation in patients with macular degeneration.

Methods

Seventy‐one patients with bilateral central vision loss [mean age: 63 (S.D. = 21) years] participated. Reading performances during binocular and monocular viewing with the better eye (i.e., the eye with the best monocular visual acuity) were evaluated using different versions of the Italian MNREAD reading chart (www.precision‐vision.com). Fixation stability and preferred retinal loci (PRLs) were recorded monocularly for each eye. The overall sample was split into inhibition, equality, and summation groups based on the binocular ratio (i.e., binocular/monocular) of the maximum reading speed.

Results

41% of patients experienced binocular inhibition, 42% summation, and 17% equality. Binocular reading speed of the inhibition group was approximately 30 words per minute slower than those of the equality and summation groups, although the inhibition group had the best visual acuity. These patients generally had monocular PRLs in non‐corresponding locations temporal or nasal to the scotoma, had the largest interocular acuity difference and lacked residual stereopsis. The three groups did not differ in fixational control, contrast sensitivity or critical print size.

Conclusions

Equal proportions of patients with central vision loss show binocular reading summation and inhibition. Patients with binocular reading inhibition have poorer reading performance and different clinical characteristics than those with binocular reading summation and equality.