Clinical suppression and amblyopia (original) (raw)

The Perceptual Consequences of Interocular Suppression in Amblyopia

Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science, 2011

PURPOSE. It is known that information from an amblyopic eye can be strongly suppressed when both eyes are open. The authors investigated the way in which suppression influences the relative perception of suprathreshold contrast and luminance between a person's eyes under dichoptic viewing conditions. METHODS. Stimuli consisted of four patches of luminance or four patches containing gratings. Two patches were presented to each eye. Ten amblyopes with mild suppression (six strabismic, three anisometropic and strabismic, and one deprivation; mean age, 34.5 years) and three control observers with normal vision (mean age, 33.0 years) matched the appearance of the stimuli presented to each eye. The match involved manipulation of either luminance or contrast. RESULTS. Amblyopes with mild suppression decreased stimulus luminance in the fellow fixing eye or increased luminance in the amblyopic eye to achieve a match (mean matching luminance, 21.1 and 39.6 cd/m 2 for the fellow fixing eye and the amblyopic eye, respectively; standard luminance, 30 cd/m 2). This interocular mismatch was also observed when luminance was variable and contrast was kept constant (mean matching luminance, 22.8 cd/m 2 for the fellow fixing eye). On the other hand, the amblyopic eye showed no loss of perceived contrast. There was little or no mismatch between the two eyes of control participants with normal binocular vision. CONCLUSIONS. Amblyopes have monocular deficits in contrast perception but dichoptic deficits in luminance perception, suggesting that suppression in its mild form involves luminance processing.

A Limited Role for Suppression in the Central Field of Individuals with Strabismic Amblyopia

PLoS ONE, 2012

Background: Although their eyes are pointing in different directions, people with long-standing strabismic amblyopia typically do not experience double-vision or indeed any visual symptoms arising from their condition. It is generally believed that the phenomenon of suppression plays a major role in dealing with the consequences of amblyopia and strabismus, by preventing images from the weaker/deviating eye from reaching conscious awareness. Suppression is thus a highly sophisticated coping mechanism. Although suppression has been studied for over 100 years the literature is equivocal in relation to the extent of the retina that is suppressed, though the method used to investigate suppression is crucial to the outcome. There is growing evidence that some measurement methods lead to artefactual claims that suppression exists when it does not.

Binocular contrast summation and inhibition in amblyopia

1992

The monocular contrast sensitivity loss in amblyopia is well documented. We investigated the influence of interocular sensitivity difference on binocular contrast sensitivity in amblyopia. Monocular and binocular contrast sensitivity functions of six amblyopes (three strabismic and three anisometropie) were measured. The monocular contrast sensitivity loss depended on the type of amblyope. Anisometropic amblyopes generally showed high frequency losses. Strabismic amblyopes showed losses at both low and high spatial frequencies. Binocular performance was assessed in terms of binocular ratios (binocular/non-amblyopic). A binocular ratio greater than 1 indicates binocular summation (binocular > monocular) while a ratio less than 1 shows binocular inhibition (binocular < monocular). In all subjects, the binocular ratio depended on the difference between the amblyopic and the non-amblyopic eye. Minimal interocular difference produced binocular summation, the magnitude of which decreased as the difference between the two eyes increased. Further increases in the monocular difference produced binocular inhibition. Anisometropic amblyopes showed a greater degree of binocular summation at low spatial frequencies compared to strabismic amblyopes. Both types of amblyopes showed binocular inhibition at high spatial frequencies. Clinical implications of binocular summation and inhibition in amblyopia are discussed.

The Regional Extent of Suppression: Strabismics Versus Nonstrabismics

Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science, 2013

PURPOSE. Evidence is accumulating that suppression may be the cause of amblyopia rather than a secondary consequence of mismatched retinal images. For example, treatment interventions that target suppression may lead to better binocular and monocular outcomes. Furthermore, it has recently been demonstrated that the measurement of suppression may have prognostic value for patching therapy. For these reasons, the measurement of suppression in the clinic needs to be improved beyond the methods that are currently available, which provide a binary outcome. METHODS. We describe a novel quantitative method for measuring the regional extent of suppression that is suitable for clinical use. The method involves a dichoptic perceptual matching procedure at multiple visual field locations. We compare a group of normal controls (mean age: 28 6 5 years); a group with strabismic amblyopia (four with microesotropia, five with esotropia, and one with exotropia; mean age: 35 6 10 years); and a group with nonstrabismic anisometropic amblyopia (mean age: 33 6 12 years). RESULTS. The extent and magnitude of suppression was similar for observers with strabismic and nonstrabismic amblyopia. Suppression was strongest within the central field and extended throughout the 208 field that we measured. CONCLUSIONS. Suppression extends throughout the central visual field in both strabismic and anisometropic forms of amblyopia. The strongest suppression occurs within the region of the visual field corresponding to the fovea of the fixing eye.

Measurement of suprathreshold binocular interactions in amblyopia

Vision research, 2008

It has been established that in amblyopia, information from the amblyopic eye (AME) is not combined with that from the fellow fixing eye (FFE) under conditions of binocular viewing. However, recent evidence suggests that mechanisms that combine information between the eyes are intact in amblyopia. The lack of binocular function is most likely due to the imbalanced inputs from the two eyes under binocular conditions [Baker, D. H., Meese, T. S., Mansouri, B., & Hess, R. F. (2007b). Binocular summation of contrast remains intact in strabismic amblyopia. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 48(11), 5332-5338]. We have measured the extent to which the information presented to each eye needs to differ for binocular combination to occur and in doing so we quantify the influence of interocular suppression. We quantify these suppressive effects for suprathreshold processing of global stimuli for both motion and spatial tasks. The results confirm the general importance of these suppr...

A psychophysical study of human binocular interactions in normal and amblyopic visual systems

Vision Research, 2008

During infancy and childhood, spatial contrast sensitivity and alignment sensitivity undergo maturation, and during this period the visual system has considerable plasticity. The purpose of this study was to compare the nature of interocular interactions of these spatial functions in normally sighted children and adults, and to study the extent to which interocular interactions are impaired in anisometropic amblyopia. Spatial functions were measured under three viewing conditions: monocular (fellow eye occluded), dichoptic (uniform stimulus presented to the fellow eye but with a peripheral fusion lock), and binocular. Measurements were made in each eye during monocular and dichoptic viewing. In the contrast sensitivity task, Gabor stimuli were presented in one of two temporal intervals. For the alignment task, a three-element Gabor stimulus was used. The task of the subject was to indicate the direction of displacement of the middle patch with respect to the outer patches. The findings indicate that in children, binocular contrast sensitivity was better than monocular (binocular summation) but so too was dichoptic sensitivity (dichoptic summation). The magnitude of binocular/dichoptic summation was significantly greater in children than in normally sighted adults for contrast sensitivity, but not for alignment sensitivity. In anisometropic amblyopes, however, we find that for the group as a whole the amblyopic eye does not benefit when the fellow eye views a dichoptic stimulus, compared to dark occlusion of that eye. In addition, we found considerable inter-individual variation within the amblyopic group. Implications of these findings for techniques used in vision therapy are discussed.

The pattern of visual deficits in amblyopia

Journal of Vision, 2003

Amblyopia is usually defined as a deficit in optotype (Snellen) acuity with no detectable organic cause. We asked whether this visual abnormality is completely characterized by the deficit in optotype acuity, or whether it has distinct forms that are determined by the conditions associated with the acuity loss, such as strabismus or anisometropia. To decide this issue, we measured optotype acuity, Vernier acuity, grating acuity, contrast sensitivity, and binocular function in 427 adults with amblyopia or with risk factors for amblyopia and in a comparison group of 68 normal observers. Optotype acuity accounts for much of the variance in Vernier and grating acuity, and somewhat less of the variance in contrast sensitivity. Nevertheless, there are differences in the patterns of visual loss among the clinically defined categories, particularly between strabismic and anisometropic categories. We used factor analysis to create a succinct representation of our measurement space. This analysis revealed two main dimensions of variation in the visual performance of our abnormal sample, one related to the visual acuity measures (optotype, Vernier, and grating acuity) and the other related to the contrast sensitivity measures (Pelli-Robson and edge contrast sensitivity). Representing our data in this space reveals distinctive distributions of visual loss for different patient categories, and suggests that two consequences of the associated conditions-reduced resolution and loss of binocularity-determine the pattern of visual deficit. Non-binocular observers with mild-to-moderate acuity deficits have, on average, better monocular contrast sensitivity than do binocular observers with the same acuity loss. Despite their superior contrast sensitivity, non-binocular observers typically have poorer optotype acuity and Vernier acuity, at a given level of grating acuity, than those with residual binocular function.