Loading…

A comparison of tests for quantifying sensory eye dominance

Clinicians rely heavily on stereoacuity to measure binocular visual function, but stereo-vision represents only one aspect of binocularity. Lab-based tests of sensory eye dominance (SED) are commonplace, but have not been translated to wider clinical practice. Here we compare several methods of quan...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Vision research (Oxford) 2018-12, Vol.153, p.60-69
Main Authors: Bossi, Manuela, Hamm, Lisa M., Dahlmann-Noor, Annegret, Dakin, Steven C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-abe4d0ebcedad1cedb8cc28df2fddcebb94b3468e5699b492364b5e66cda6a2b3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-abe4d0ebcedad1cedb8cc28df2fddcebb94b3468e5699b492364b5e66cda6a2b3
container_end_page 69
container_issue
container_start_page 60
container_title Vision research (Oxford)
container_volume 153
creator Bossi, Manuela
Hamm, Lisa M.
Dahlmann-Noor, Annegret
Dakin, Steven C.
description Clinicians rely heavily on stereoacuity to measure binocular visual function, but stereo-vision represents only one aspect of binocularity. Lab-based tests of sensory eye dominance (SED) are commonplace, but have not been translated to wider clinical practice. Here we compare several methods of quantifying SED in a format suitable for clinical use. We tested 30 participants with ostensibly normal vision on eight tests. Seven tests (#1–7) were designed to quantify SED in the form of an interocular balance-point (BP). In tests #1–6, we estimated a contrast-BP, the interocular difference in contrast required for observers to be equally likely to base their judgement on either eye, whereas in test #7 we measured binocular rivalry (interocular ratio of sensory dominance duration). We compare test-retest reliability (intra-observer consistency) and test-validity (inter-observer discriminatory power) and compare BP to stereoacuity (test #8). The test that best preserved inter-observer differences in contrast balance while maintaining good test-retest reliability was a polarity judgement using superimposed opposite-contrast polarity same-identity optotypes. A reliable and valid measure of SED can be obtained rapidly (20 trials) using a simple contrast-polarity judgement. Tests that use polarity-rivalrous stimuli elicit more reliable judgments than those that do not. Although sensory eye dominance is central to understanding normal and disordered binocular vision, there is currently no consensus as to the best way to measure it. Here we compare several candidate measures of sensory eye dominance and conclude that a reliable measure of SED can be achieved rapidly using a judgement of stimulus contrast-polarity.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.visres.2018.09.006
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2117157843</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0042698918302049</els_id><sourcerecordid>2117157843</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-abe4d0ebcedad1cedb8cc28df2fddcebb94b3468e5699b492364b5e66cda6a2b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtKAzEUhoMotlbfQGSWbmZMMplMgiCU4g0KbnQdcjkjKZ1JTaaFvr0pVZduztl8_7l8CF0TXBFM-N2q2vkUIVUUE1FhWWHMT9CUiFaUDWf8FE0xZrTkUsgJukhphTFuGyrP0aTGVNKWNlN0Py9s6Dc6-hSGInTFCGlMRRdi8bXVw-i7vR8-iwRDCnFfwB4KF3o_6MHCJTrr9DrB1U-foY-nx_fFS7l8e35dzJelZViMpTbAHAZjwWlHcjXCWipcRzvnLBgjmakZF9BwKQ2TtObMNMC5dZprauoZuj3O3cTwtc33qd4nC-u1HiBsk6KEtKRpBaszyo6ojSFlO53aRN_ruFcEq4M2tVJHbeqgTWGpsrYcu_nZsDU9uL_Qr6cMPBwByH_uPESVrIfswPkIdlQu-P83fAN5uYJY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2117157843</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of tests for quantifying sensory eye dominance</title><source>Elsevier</source><creator>Bossi, Manuela ; Hamm, Lisa M. ; Dahlmann-Noor, Annegret ; Dakin, Steven C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bossi, Manuela ; Hamm, Lisa M. ; Dahlmann-Noor, Annegret ; Dakin, Steven C.</creatorcontrib><description>Clinicians rely heavily on stereoacuity to measure binocular visual function, but stereo-vision represents only one aspect of binocularity. Lab-based tests of sensory eye dominance (SED) are commonplace, but have not been translated to wider clinical practice. Here we compare several methods of quantifying SED in a format suitable for clinical use. We tested 30 participants with ostensibly normal vision on eight tests. Seven tests (#1–7) were designed to quantify SED in the form of an interocular balance-point (BP). In tests #1–6, we estimated a contrast-BP, the interocular difference in contrast required for observers to be equally likely to base their judgement on either eye, whereas in test #7 we measured binocular rivalry (interocular ratio of sensory dominance duration). We compare test-retest reliability (intra-observer consistency) and test-validity (inter-observer discriminatory power) and compare BP to stereoacuity (test #8). The test that best preserved inter-observer differences in contrast balance while maintaining good test-retest reliability was a polarity judgement using superimposed opposite-contrast polarity same-identity optotypes. A reliable and valid measure of SED can be obtained rapidly (20 trials) using a simple contrast-polarity judgement. Tests that use polarity-rivalrous stimuli elicit more reliable judgments than those that do not. Although sensory eye dominance is central to understanding normal and disordered binocular vision, there is currently no consensus as to the best way to measure it. Here we compare several candidate measures of sensory eye dominance and conclude that a reliable measure of SED can be achieved rapidly using a judgement of stimulus contrast-polarity.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0042-6989</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5646</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2018.09.006</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30292725</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Amblyopia ; Binocular vision ; Dominance, Ocular - physiology ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Reproducibility of Results ; Stereoacuity ; Vision Tests - methods ; Vision, Binocular - physiology ; Visual Acuity - physiology ; Visual Perception - physiology ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Vision research (Oxford), 2018-12, Vol.153, p.60-69</ispartof><rights>2018 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-abe4d0ebcedad1cedb8cc28df2fddcebb94b3468e5699b492364b5e66cda6a2b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-abe4d0ebcedad1cedb8cc28df2fddcebb94b3468e5699b492364b5e66cda6a2b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3548-9104 ; 0000-0003-2777-7146</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30292725$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bossi, Manuela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamm, Lisa M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dahlmann-Noor, Annegret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dakin, Steven C.</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of tests for quantifying sensory eye dominance</title><title>Vision research (Oxford)</title><addtitle>Vision Res</addtitle><description>Clinicians rely heavily on stereoacuity to measure binocular visual function, but stereo-vision represents only one aspect of binocularity. Lab-based tests of sensory eye dominance (SED) are commonplace, but have not been translated to wider clinical practice. Here we compare several methods of quantifying SED in a format suitable for clinical use. We tested 30 participants with ostensibly normal vision on eight tests. Seven tests (#1–7) were designed to quantify SED in the form of an interocular balance-point (BP). In tests #1–6, we estimated a contrast-BP, the interocular difference in contrast required for observers to be equally likely to base their judgement on either eye, whereas in test #7 we measured binocular rivalry (interocular ratio of sensory dominance duration). We compare test-retest reliability (intra-observer consistency) and test-validity (inter-observer discriminatory power) and compare BP to stereoacuity (test #8). The test that best preserved inter-observer differences in contrast balance while maintaining good test-retest reliability was a polarity judgement using superimposed opposite-contrast polarity same-identity optotypes. A reliable and valid measure of SED can be obtained rapidly (20 trials) using a simple contrast-polarity judgement. Tests that use polarity-rivalrous stimuli elicit more reliable judgments than those that do not. Although sensory eye dominance is central to understanding normal and disordered binocular vision, there is currently no consensus as to the best way to measure it. Here we compare several candidate measures of sensory eye dominance and conclude that a reliable measure of SED can be achieved rapidly using a judgement of stimulus contrast-polarity.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Amblyopia</subject><subject>Binocular vision</subject><subject>Dominance, Ocular - physiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Stereoacuity</subject><subject>Vision Tests - methods</subject><subject>Vision, Binocular - physiology</subject><subject>Visual Acuity - physiology</subject><subject>Visual Perception - physiology</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0042-6989</issn><issn>1878-5646</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMtKAzEUhoMotlbfQGSWbmZMMplMgiCU4g0KbnQdcjkjKZ1JTaaFvr0pVZduztl8_7l8CF0TXBFM-N2q2vkUIVUUE1FhWWHMT9CUiFaUDWf8FE0xZrTkUsgJukhphTFuGyrP0aTGVNKWNlN0Py9s6Dc6-hSGInTFCGlMRRdi8bXVw-i7vR8-iwRDCnFfwB4KF3o_6MHCJTrr9DrB1U-foY-nx_fFS7l8e35dzJelZViMpTbAHAZjwWlHcjXCWipcRzvnLBgjmakZF9BwKQ2TtObMNMC5dZprauoZuj3O3cTwtc33qd4nC-u1HiBsk6KEtKRpBaszyo6ojSFlO53aRN_ruFcEq4M2tVJHbeqgTWGpsrYcu_nZsDU9uL_Qr6cMPBwByH_uPESVrIfswPkIdlQu-P83fAN5uYJY</recordid><startdate>201812</startdate><enddate>201812</enddate><creator>Bossi, Manuela</creator><creator>Hamm, Lisa M.</creator><creator>Dahlmann-Noor, Annegret</creator><creator>Dakin, Steven C.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3548-9104</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2777-7146</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201812</creationdate><title>A comparison of tests for quantifying sensory eye dominance</title><author>Bossi, Manuela ; Hamm, Lisa M. ; Dahlmann-Noor, Annegret ; Dakin, Steven C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-abe4d0ebcedad1cedb8cc28df2fddcebb94b3468e5699b492364b5e66cda6a2b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Amblyopia</topic><topic>Binocular vision</topic><topic>Dominance, Ocular - physiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Stereoacuity</topic><topic>Vision Tests - methods</topic><topic>Vision, Binocular - physiology</topic><topic>Visual Acuity - physiology</topic><topic>Visual Perception - physiology</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bossi, Manuela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamm, Lisa M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dahlmann-Noor, Annegret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dakin, Steven C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Vision research (Oxford)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bossi, Manuela</au><au>Hamm, Lisa M.</au><au>Dahlmann-Noor, Annegret</au><au>Dakin, Steven C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of tests for quantifying sensory eye dominance</atitle><jtitle>Vision research (Oxford)</jtitle><addtitle>Vision Res</addtitle><date>2018-12</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>153</volume><spage>60</spage><epage>69</epage><pages>60-69</pages><issn>0042-6989</issn><eissn>1878-5646</eissn><abstract>Clinicians rely heavily on stereoacuity to measure binocular visual function, but stereo-vision represents only one aspect of binocularity. Lab-based tests of sensory eye dominance (SED) are commonplace, but have not been translated to wider clinical practice. Here we compare several methods of quantifying SED in a format suitable for clinical use. We tested 30 participants with ostensibly normal vision on eight tests. Seven tests (#1–7) were designed to quantify SED in the form of an interocular balance-point (BP). In tests #1–6, we estimated a contrast-BP, the interocular difference in contrast required for observers to be equally likely to base their judgement on either eye, whereas in test #7 we measured binocular rivalry (interocular ratio of sensory dominance duration). We compare test-retest reliability (intra-observer consistency) and test-validity (inter-observer discriminatory power) and compare BP to stereoacuity (test #8). The test that best preserved inter-observer differences in contrast balance while maintaining good test-retest reliability was a polarity judgement using superimposed opposite-contrast polarity same-identity optotypes. A reliable and valid measure of SED can be obtained rapidly (20 trials) using a simple contrast-polarity judgement. Tests that use polarity-rivalrous stimuli elicit more reliable judgments than those that do not. Although sensory eye dominance is central to understanding normal and disordered binocular vision, there is currently no consensus as to the best way to measure it. Here we compare several candidate measures of sensory eye dominance and conclude that a reliable measure of SED can be achieved rapidly using a judgement of stimulus contrast-polarity.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>30292725</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.visres.2018.09.006</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3548-9104</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2777-7146</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0042-6989
ispartof Vision research (Oxford), 2018-12, Vol.153, p.60-69
issn 0042-6989
1878-5646
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2117157843
source Elsevier
subjects Adult
Amblyopia
Binocular vision
Dominance, Ocular - physiology
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Reproducibility of Results
Stereoacuity
Vision Tests - methods
Vision, Binocular - physiology
Visual Acuity - physiology
Visual Perception - physiology
Young Adult
title A comparison of tests for quantifying sensory eye dominance
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T08%3A12%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20tests%20for%20quantifying%20sensory%20eye%20dominance&rft.jtitle=Vision%20research%20(Oxford)&rft.au=Bossi,%20Manuela&rft.date=2018-12&rft.volume=153&rft.spage=60&rft.epage=69&rft.pages=60-69&rft.issn=0042-6989&rft.eissn=1878-5646&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.visres.2018.09.006&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2117157843%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-abe4d0ebcedad1cedb8cc28df2fddcebb94b3468e5699b492364b5e66cda6a2b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2117157843&rft_id=info:pmid/30292725&rfr_iscdi=true