Shifting eye balance using monocularly directed attention in normal vision

Flash Suppression Reveals an Additional Nonvisual Extrastriate Contribution for Amblyopic Suppression

Purpose

A growing body of evidence suggests that anomalous binocular interactions underlie the deficits in amblyopia, but their nature and neural basis are still not fully understood.

Methods

We examined the behavioral and neural correlates of interocular suppression in 13 adult amblyopes and 13 matched controls using a flash suppression paradigm while recording steady-state visual evoked potentials. The strength of suppression was manipulated by changing the contrast (10%, 20%, 30%, or 100%) of the flash stimulus, or the suppressor, presented either in the dominant (fellow) or nondominant (amblyopic) eye.

Results

At the behavioral level, interocular suppression in normal observers was found, regardless of the eye origin of the flash onset. However, the pattern of suppression in the amblyopes was not symmetric, meaning that the suppression from the dominant eye was stronger, supporting a putative chronic suppression of the amblyopic eye. Interestingly, the amblyopic eye was able to suppress the dominant eye but only at the highest contrast level. At the electrophysiology level, suppression of the steady-state visual evoked potential responses in both groups in all conditions was similar over the occipital region, but differed over the frontal region.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that, although suppression in amblyopia involves an imbalanced interaction between the inputs to the two eyes in the visual cortex, there is also involvement of nonvisual extrastriate areas.

Attentional eye selection modulates sensory eye dominance

Brief periods of monocular deprivation significantly modify binocular visual processing. For example, patching one eye for a few hours alters the inter-ocular balance, with the previously patched eye becoming dominant once the patch is removed. However, the contribution of higher-level visual processing to this phenomenon is still unclear. Here, we compared changes in sensory eye dominance produced by three types of monocular manipulations in adult participants with normal binocular vision. One eye was covered for 150 min using either an opaque patch, a diffusing lens, or a prism that inverted the image. All three manipulations altered dominance duration and predominance during binocular rivalry (BR) in favour of the treated eye and the time courses of the changes were similar. These results indicate that modifications of luminance or contrast are not strictly necessary to drive shifts in eye dominance, as both were unaltered in the prism condition. Next, we found that shifts in eye dominance were dependent on attentional demands during the monocular treatment period, providing support for the role of attentional eye selection in modulating eye dominance. Finally, we found relatively rapid build-up of the ocular dominance shift after the onset of monocular treatment. Taken together, our results suggest that modifications to monocular input alter inter-ocular balance via selective attentional mechanisms that bias output towards the deprived eye. Eye-based attention may play an important role in conditions where normal input to one eye is disrupted, such as childhood amblyopia.