16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effects of Ocular Dominance on Contrast Sensitivity in Middle-Aged People

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose. Our aim was to compare contrast sensitivity values of the dominant and nondominant eyes of healthy middle-aged subjects. Material and Methods. Ninety eyes of 45 healthy middle-aged subjects (30 males and 15 females) were included in this study. Patients were aged between 40 and 60 years, having uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/25 or better (Snellen chart). Ocular dominance was determined by hole-in-the-card test. Functional acuity contrast testing (F.A.C.T.) was measured using the Optec 6500 vision testing system (Stereo Optical Co. Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) under both photopic and mesopic conditions. Results. At all spatial frequencies (1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 18 cpd), under mesopic conditions, the contrast sensitivity values of the dominant eyes were slightly greater than those of the nondominant eyes; but only 18 cpd spatial frequency measurements' difference was statistically significant ( P = 0.035). Under photopic conditions, the contrast sensitivity values of the dominant eyes and non-dominant eyes were similar at all spatial frequencies ( P > 0.05). Conclusions. The photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity values of dominant and nondominant eyes of healthy middle-aged people were similar at all spatial frequencies, except at mesopic 18 cpd spatial frequency.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Contrast sensitivity and functional vision.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            What does the dominant eye dominate? A brief and somewhat contentious review.

            We examine a set of implicit and explicit claims about the concept of eye dominance that have been made over the years and note that the new literature on eye dominance does not reflect the old literature from the first half of the last century. We argue that the visual and oculomotor function of the dominant eye--defined by such criteria as asymmetry in acuity, rivalry, or sighting--remains unknown and that the usefulness of the concept for understanding its function is yet to be determined. We suggest that the sighting-dominant eye is the eye used for monocular tasks and has no unique functional role in vision.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A new interocular suppression technique for measuring sensory eye dominance.

              Recently devised tests have implemented forms of interocular suppression (e.g., binocular rivalry) to assess eye dominance. In an effort to combine the strengths of these tests, the authors introduce a new technique for quantifying the magnitude of interocular suppression by using an easily administered psychophysical test. Eighty-eight observers participated in the interocular suppression test, which involved dichoptic presentation of dynamic noise to one eye and a target stimulus to the other. Observers made a form-discrimination judgment once the target emerged from suppression. The authors reasoned that the dominant eye is less susceptible to interocular suppression and as a result, perception and thus, form discrimination would be faster when the target is presented to the dominant eye as opposed to the nondominant eye. Observers' sighting dominance, acuity, contrast sensitivity, and test-retest reliability were also assessed. There were significant interocular differences in mean reaction times within and across observers. Of the observers, 68% and 32% observers were categorized as right eye dominant and left eye dominant, respectively, according to the test. Moreover, 38% of observers showed strong eye dominance. Observers' discrimination accuracy (98%) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.52-0.67) were high. Consistent with results in previous studies, statistical correlations were weak between the sighting dominance test, acuity scores, contrast sensitivity measures, and the interocular suppression test. This interocular suppression technique offers an efficient, reliable, quantitative method of evaluating eye dominance and may be useful in making decisions about differential refractive correction of the two eyes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                ISRN Ophthalmol
                ISRN Ophthalmol
                ISRN.OPHTHALMOLOGY
                ISRN Ophthalmology
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                2090-5688
                2090-5696
                2014
                9 March 2014
                : 2014
                : 903084
                Affiliations
                1Ophthalmology Department, Pamukkale University, Kınıklı, 20070 Denizli, Turkey
                2Beyoğlu Eye Research and Training Hospital, 34420 Istanbul, Turkey
                3Denizli State Hospital, Eye Clinic, 20125 Denizli, Turkey
                Author notes

                Academic Editors: F. Giansanti and I.-J. Wang

                Article
                10.1155/2014/903084
                3964755
                24734197
                34779845-0000-4d92-b226-6aa540023c01
                Copyright © 2014 Gökhan Pekel et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 7 November 2013
                : 13 February 2014
                Categories
                Clinical Study

                Comments

                Comment on this article