Cargando…

A covered eye fails to follow an object moving in depth

To clearly view approaching objects, the eyes rotate inward (vergence), and the intraocular lenses focus (accommodation). Current ocular control models assume both eyes are driven by unitary vergence and unitary accommodation commands that causally interact. The models typically describe discrete ga...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chandna, Arvind, Badler, Jeremy, Singh, Devashish, Watamaniuk, Scott, Heinen, Stephen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8154899/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34040063
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-90371-8
_version_ 1783699095637983232
author Chandna, Arvind
Badler, Jeremy
Singh, Devashish
Watamaniuk, Scott
Heinen, Stephen
author_facet Chandna, Arvind
Badler, Jeremy
Singh, Devashish
Watamaniuk, Scott
Heinen, Stephen
author_sort Chandna, Arvind
collection PubMed
description To clearly view approaching objects, the eyes rotate inward (vergence), and the intraocular lenses focus (accommodation). Current ocular control models assume both eyes are driven by unitary vergence and unitary accommodation commands that causally interact. The models typically describe discrete gaze shifts to non-accommodative targets performed under laboratory conditions. We probe these unitary signals using a physical stimulus moving in depth on the midline while recording vergence and accommodation simultaneously from both eyes in normal observers. Using monocular viewing, retinal disparity is removed, leaving only monocular cues for interpreting the object’s motion in depth. The viewing eye always followed the target’s motion. However, the occluded eye did not follow the target, and surprisingly, rotated out of phase with it. In contrast, accommodation in both eyes was synchronized with the target under monocular viewing. The results challenge existing unitary vergence command theories, and causal accommodation-vergence linkage.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8154899
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81548992021-05-27 A covered eye fails to follow an object moving in depth Chandna, Arvind Badler, Jeremy Singh, Devashish Watamaniuk, Scott Heinen, Stephen Sci Rep Article To clearly view approaching objects, the eyes rotate inward (vergence), and the intraocular lenses focus (accommodation). Current ocular control models assume both eyes are driven by unitary vergence and unitary accommodation commands that causally interact. The models typically describe discrete gaze shifts to non-accommodative targets performed under laboratory conditions. We probe these unitary signals using a physical stimulus moving in depth on the midline while recording vergence and accommodation simultaneously from both eyes in normal observers. Using monocular viewing, retinal disparity is removed, leaving only monocular cues for interpreting the object’s motion in depth. The viewing eye always followed the target’s motion. However, the occluded eye did not follow the target, and surprisingly, rotated out of phase with it. In contrast, accommodation in both eyes was synchronized with the target under monocular viewing. The results challenge existing unitary vergence command theories, and causal accommodation-vergence linkage. Nature Publishing Group UK 2021-05-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8154899/ /pubmed/34040063 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-90371-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Chandna, Arvind
Badler, Jeremy
Singh, Devashish
Watamaniuk, Scott
Heinen, Stephen
A covered eye fails to follow an object moving in depth
title A covered eye fails to follow an object moving in depth
title_full A covered eye fails to follow an object moving in depth
title_fullStr A covered eye fails to follow an object moving in depth
title_full_unstemmed A covered eye fails to follow an object moving in depth
title_short A covered eye fails to follow an object moving in depth
title_sort covered eye fails to follow an object moving in depth
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8154899/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34040063
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-90371-8
work_keys_str_mv AT chandnaarvind acoveredeyefailstofollowanobjectmovingindepth
AT badlerjeremy acoveredeyefailstofollowanobjectmovingindepth
AT singhdevashish acoveredeyefailstofollowanobjectmovingindepth
AT watamaniukscott acoveredeyefailstofollowanobjectmovingindepth
AT heinenstephen acoveredeyefailstofollowanobjectmovingindepth
AT chandnaarvind coveredeyefailstofollowanobjectmovingindepth
AT badlerjeremy coveredeyefailstofollowanobjectmovingindepth
AT singhdevashish coveredeyefailstofollowanobjectmovingindepth
AT watamaniukscott coveredeyefailstofollowanobjectmovingindepth
AT heinenstephen coveredeyefailstofollowanobjectmovingindepth