Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently

Neural Correlates of Sensory Eye Dominance in Human Visual White Matter Tracts

A significant proportion of the human neurotypical population exhibits some degree of sensory eye dominance (SED), referring to the brain's preferential processing of one eye's input versus another. The neural substrates underlying this functional imbalance are not well known. Here, we investigated the relationship between visual white matter tract properties and SED in the human neurotypical population. Observers' performance on two commonly used dichoptic tasks were used to index SED, along with performance on a third task to address a functional implication of binocular imbalance: stereovision. We show that diffusivity metrics of the optic radiations (ORs) well predict behavioral SED metrics. We found no relationship between SED and stereosensitivity. Our data suggest that SED is not simply reflected by gray matter structural and functional alterations, as often suggested, but relates, at least in part to the microstructural properties of thalamocortical white matter.

Measuring the impact of suppression on visual acuity in children with amblyopia using a dichoptic visual acuity chart

Purpose

To develop a novel dichoptic visual acuity chart that measures the impact of interocular suppression on the visual acuity of each eye when two eyes are open.

Methods

Fifty-four subjects (19 anisometropic amblyopia, 20 treated amblyopia, and 15 normal children) participated in this study. The visual acuity that was tested under dichoptic-optotypes condition (i.e., presented optotypes to the untested eye) was compared with that under monocular condition (i.e., cover the untested eye with opaque patch). Visual acuity differences between these two conditions were compared among the three groups. The correlations between visual acuity differences and the depth of interocular suppression were then computed. Some participants performed the visual acuity test under dichoptic-luminance condition (i.e., presented mean luminance to the untested eye), and the test-retest reliability was established.

Results

A reduced visual acuity of the non-dominant eye was found in the dichoptic-optotypes condition for the amblyopia group (P < 0.001) and the treated group (P = 0.001); the difference in the treated group was less than that in the amblyopia group (P < 0.001) but more than that in the normal group (P = 0.026). A significant correlation was found between the visual acuity differences and the depth of suppression, which was tested with a binocular phase combination task (P = 0.005). No change was found in the dichoptic-luminance condition.

Conclusion

The amblyopic eye and the previous amblyopic eye seem to suffer from a reduced visual acuity when two eyes are open due to suppression. This was successfully captured by our novel and reliable dichoptic-optotypes visual acuity chart.

Dichoptic Perceptual Training and Sensory Eye Dominance Plasticity in Normal Vision

Purpose

We introduce a set of dichoptic training tasks that differ in terms of (1) the presence of external noise and (2) the visual feature implicated (motion, orientation), examining the generality of training effects between the different training and test cues and their capacity for driving changes in sensory eye dominance and stereoscopic depth perception.

Methods

We randomly assigned 116 normal-sighted observers to five groups (four training groups and one no training group). All groups completed both pre- and posttests, during which they were tested on dichoptic motion and orientation tasks under noisy and noise-free conditions, as well as a binocular phase combination task and two depth tasks to index sensory eye dominance and binocular function. Training groups received visual training on one of the four dichoptic tasks over 3 consecutive days.

Results

Training under noise-free conditions supported generalization of learning to noise-free tasks involving an untrained feature. By contrast, there was a symmetric learning transfer between the signal-noise and no-noise tasks within the same visual feature. Further, training on all tasks reduced sensory eye dominance but did not improve depth perception.

Conclusions

Training-driven changes in sensory eye balance do not depend on the stimulus feature or whether the training entails the presence of external noise. We conjecture that dichoptic visual training acts to balance interocular suppression before or at the site of binocular combination.

Order effects in two-alternative forced-choice tasks invalidate adaptive threshold estimates

Adaptive psychophysical methods are widely used for the quick estimation of percentage points (thresholds) on psychometric functions for two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) tasks. The use of adaptive methods is supported by numerous simulation studies documenting their performance, which have shown that thresholds can be reasonably estimated with them when their founding assumptions hold. One of these assumptions is that the psychometric function is invariant, but empirical evidence is mounting that human performance in 2AFC tasks needs to be described by two different psychometric functions, one that holds when the test stimulus is presented first in the 2AFC trial and a different one that holds when the test is presented second. The same holds when presentations are instead simultaneous at two spatial locations rather than sequential. We re-evaluated the performance of adaptive methods in the presence of these order effects via simulation studies and an empirical study with human observers. The simulation study showed that thresholds are severely overestimated by adaptive methods in these conditions, and the empirical study corroborated these findings. These results question the validity of threshold estimates obtained with adaptive methods that incorrectly assume the psychometric function to be invariant with presentation order. Alternative ways in which thresholds can be accurately estimated in the presence of order effects are discussed.

The Do's and Don'ts of Psychophysical Methods for Interpretability of Psychometric Functions and Their Descriptors

Many areas of research require measuring psychometric functions or their descriptors (thresholds, slopes, etc.). Data for this purpose are collected with psychophysical methods of various types and justification for the interpretation of results arises from a model of performance grounded in signal detection theory. Decades of research have shown that psychophysical data display features that are incompatible with such framework, questioning the validity of interpretations obtained under it and revealing that psychophysical performance is more complex than this framework entertains. This paper describes the assumptions and formulation of the conventional framework for the two major classes of psychophysical methods (single- and dual-presentation methods) and presents various lines of empirical evidence that the framework is inconsistent with. An alternative framework is then described and shown to account for all the characteristics that the conventional framework regards as anomalies. This alternative process model explicitly separates the sensory, decisional, and response components of performance and represents them via parameters whose estimation characterizes the corresponding processes. Retrospective and prospective evidence of the validity of the alternative framework is also presented. A formal analysis also reveals that some psychophysical methods and response formats are unsuitable for separation of the three components of observed performance. Recommendations are thus given regarding practices that should be avoided and those that should be followed to ensure interpretability of the psychometric function, or descriptors (detection threshold, difference limen, point of subjective equality, etc.) obtained with shortcut methods that do not require estimation of psychometric functions.