Cargando…

Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently

Classical sighting or sensory tests are used in clinical practice to identify the dominant eye. Several psychophysical tests were recently proposed to quantify the magnitude of dominance but whether their results agree was never investigated. We addressed this question for the two most common psycho...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: García-Pérez, Miguel A., Peli, Eli
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6492369/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31069044
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2041669519841397
_version_ 1783415130708508672
author García-Pérez, Miguel A.
Peli, Eli
author_facet García-Pérez, Miguel A.
Peli, Eli
author_sort García-Pérez, Miguel A.
collection PubMed
description Classical sighting or sensory tests are used in clinical practice to identify the dominant eye. Several psychophysical tests were recently proposed to quantify the magnitude of dominance but whether their results agree was never investigated. We addressed this question for the two most common psychophysical tests: The perceived-phase test, which measures the cyclopean appearance of dichoptically presented sinusoids of different phase, and the coherence-threshold test, which measures interocular differences in motion perception when signal and noise stimuli are presented dichoptically. We also checked for agreement with three classical tests (Worth 4-dot, Randot suppression, and Bagolini lenses). Psychophysical tests were administered in their conventional form and also using more dependable psychophysical methods. The results showed weak correlations between psychophysical measures of strength of dominance with inconsistent identification of the dominant eye across tests: Agreement on left-eye dominance, right-eye dominance, or nondominance by both tests occurred only for 11 of 40 observers (27.5%); the remaining 29 observers were classified differently by each test, including 14 cases (35%) of opposite classification (left-eye dominance by one test and right-eye dominance by the other). Classical tests also yielded conflicting results that did not agree well with classification based on psychophysical tests. The results are discussed in the context of determination of ocular dominance for clinical decisions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6492369
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64923692019-05-08 Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently García-Pérez, Miguel A. Peli, Eli Iperception Article Classical sighting or sensory tests are used in clinical practice to identify the dominant eye. Several psychophysical tests were recently proposed to quantify the magnitude of dominance but whether their results agree was never investigated. We addressed this question for the two most common psychophysical tests: The perceived-phase test, which measures the cyclopean appearance of dichoptically presented sinusoids of different phase, and the coherence-threshold test, which measures interocular differences in motion perception when signal and noise stimuli are presented dichoptically. We also checked for agreement with three classical tests (Worth 4-dot, Randot suppression, and Bagolini lenses). Psychophysical tests were administered in their conventional form and also using more dependable psychophysical methods. The results showed weak correlations between psychophysical measures of strength of dominance with inconsistent identification of the dominant eye across tests: Agreement on left-eye dominance, right-eye dominance, or nondominance by both tests occurred only for 11 of 40 observers (27.5%); the remaining 29 observers were classified differently by each test, including 14 cases (35%) of opposite classification (left-eye dominance by one test and right-eye dominance by the other). Classical tests also yielded conflicting results that did not agree well with classification based on psychophysical tests. The results are discussed in the context of determination of ocular dominance for clinical decisions. SAGE Publications 2019-04-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6492369/ /pubmed/31069044 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2041669519841397 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Article
García-Pérez, Miguel A.
Peli, Eli
Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently
title Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently
title_full Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently
title_fullStr Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently
title_full_unstemmed Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently
title_short Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently
title_sort psychophysical tests do not identify ocular dominance consistently
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6492369/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31069044
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2041669519841397
work_keys_str_mv AT garciaperezmiguela psychophysicaltestsdonotidentifyoculardominanceconsistently
AT pelieli psychophysicaltestsdonotidentifyoculardominanceconsistently