Binocular Vision and Fixational Eye Movements
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Vision (2019) 19(4):9, 1–15 1 Binocular vision and fixational eye movements School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada Rajkumar Nallour Present address: Envision Research Institute, Raveendran Wichita, KS, USA ([email protected]) $ School of Optometry and Vision Science, William R. Bobier University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada $ School of Optometry and Vision Science, Benjamin Thompson University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada $ The aim of this study was to assess the relationship stationary target (Helmholtz, 1925; Leigh & Zee, 1999; between binocular vision and fixation stability (FS). Martinez-Conde, Macknik, & Hubel, 2004; Steinman, Across three experiments, we investigated (a) whether Cushman, & Martins, 1982). The amplitude of these fixation was more stable during binocular versus fixational eye movements determines fixation stability monocular viewing across a range of stimulus contrasts (FS)—a measure of ocular motion extent that occurs in normal observers (n ¼ 11), (b) whether binocular during fixation. FS is often quantified using bivariate rivalry affected FS in normal observers (n ¼ 14), and (c) contour ellipse area (BCEA), larger BCEA values whether FS was affected by interocular contrast indicate less stable fixation. Normal fixational eye differences in normal observers (n ¼ 8) and patients with movements may benefit spatial vision (Kagan, 2012; anisometropic amblyopia (n ¼ 5). FS was quantified using Martinez-Conde, 2006; Martinez-Conde et al., 2004; global bivariate contour ellipse area, and microsaccades Rucci & Desbordes, 2003; Rucci & Poletti, 2015); were detected using an unsupervised cluster-detection however, abnormally large fixational eye movements method. In normal observers, binocular viewing showed can impair vision by moving the point of fixation away more stable fixation at all stimulus contrasts, and from the fovea and smearing the retinal image (Chung, binocular rivalry did not affect FS. When interocular contrast was manipulated under dichoptic viewing Kumar, Li, & Levi, 2015; Chung & Bedell, 1995; conditions, normal observers exhibited less stable Simmers, Gray, & Winn, 1999). fixation for an eye that viewed 0% contrast (no fixation A number of studies have observed less stable target). In anisometropic amblyopia, fixation was less fixation (increased amplitude of fixational eye move- stable in both eyes when the fellow eye viewed at 0% ments) in amblyopic eyes (Chung et al., 2015; contrast. No effects were observed at other interocular Ciuffreda, Kenyon, & Stark, 1991; Gonza´lez, Wong, contrast differences. Overall, binocular FS was impaired Niechwiej-Szwedo, Tarita-Nistor, & Steinbach, 2012; in both eyes in anisometropic amblyopia compared to Raveendran, Babu, Hess, & Bobier, 2014; Schor & normal observers. We conclude that binocular vision Hallmark, 1978; Shaikh, Otero-Millan, Kumar, & influences FS in normal observers but in an all-or-nothing Ghasia, 2016; Shi et al., 2012; Srebro, 1983; Subrama- fashion, whereby the presence or absence of a binocular nian, Jost, & Birch, 2013). Less stable fixation is target is important rather than the relative contrast of associated with a greater interocular acuity difference the targets in each eye. In anisometropic amblyopia, the (Gonza´lez et al., 2012) and poorer stereoacuity (Sub- fellow eye appears to control FS of both eyes under ramanian et al., 2013) in amblyopia, indicating a dichoptic viewing conditions. possible association between impaired binocular vision and reduced FS. Supporting such an association is the finding that transient FS improvements in strabismic amblyopia occurred when fixation targets were bifo- Introduction veally aligned and interocular contrast was manipu- lated to overcome amblyopic eye suppression and Small, involuntary eye movements (microsaccades, promote binocular combination (Raveendran et al., drifts, and tremors) occur during fixation of a 2014). Citation: Raveendran, R. N., Bobier, W. R., & Thompson, B. (2019). Binocular vision and fixational eye movements. Journal of Vision, 19(4):9, 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1167/19.4.9. https://doi.org/10.1167/19.4.9Received August 10, 2018; published April 3, 2019 ISSN 1534-7362 Copyright 2019 The Authors Downloaded from jov.arvojournals.orgThis work ison licensed 10/01/2021 under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Journal of Vision (2019) 19(4):9, 1–15 Raveendran, Bobier, & Thompson 2 Three studies have reported generally more stable observers due to disrupted binocular combination fixational eye movements under binocular compared to (Pardhan & Gilchrist, 1990, 1992). monocular viewing conditions. The first involved two rhesus monkeys (Motter & Poggio, 1984), and the other two involved humans (Gonza´lez et al., 2012; Kraus- kopf, Cornsweet, & Riggs, 1960). Conceptually, General methods binocular viewing might improve FS in observers with normal vision by increasing resolution of the fixation Apparatus target through binocular summation (Campbell & Green, 1965). However, fixation targets are typically Fixational eye movements were measured under clearly visible, high-contrast images displayed for a nondichoptic and dichoptic viewing conditions. During prolonged period of time. These factors may minimize nondichoptic viewing, participants viewed a gamma binocular summation effects (Bearse & Freeman, 1994). corrected 7-in. LCD monitor (Lilliput, CA, http:// Alternatively, engagement of vergence and fusion lilliputweb.net/non-touch-screen-monitors/7-inch- mechanisms during binocular viewing may improve FS monitors/619gl-70np-c.html) at 40 cm. Dichoptic by activating interocular feedback mechanisms within viewing was achieved using a haploscope constructed oculomotor control pathways (Otero-Millan, Macknik, from two cold mirrors that transmitted infrared light & Martinez-Conde, 2014; Schor, 1979). In strabismic (Edmund Optics, NJ, http://www.edmundoptics.com/ amblyopia, reduced amblyopic eye FS appears to be optics/optical-mirrors/specialty-mirrors/cold-mirrors/ associated with a loss of foveation and suppression 1900) placed 15 cm from the eyes with the head steadied (Raveendran et al., 2014), both of which degrade fusion using a chin rest. Two 7-in. gamma-corrected, lumi- and vergence. nance-matched LCD monitors (one visible to each eye) The overall aim of this study was to further were placed laterally along each arm of the haploscope investigate the interaction between binocular vision and and set 25 cm from the mirrors, creating accommoda- FS. In Experiment 1, we measured FS for each eye of tive and vergence demands of 2.5D and 2.5MA, normal observers during monocular and binocular respectively, which were the same as the nondichoptic viewing of fixation stimuli presented within a contrast viewing condition. Therefore, in both nondichoptic and range of 100% to 0%. If improved perception of the dichoptic viewing conditions, the planes of accommo- fixation target due to binocular summation is respon- dation and vergence were fixed at 40 cm. Stimuli were sible for improved FS during binocular viewing, we presented using a MacBook, (Apple, Inc., Cupertino, would expect a greater advantage of binocular viewing CA) connected to a multidisplay adapter (Dual- at lower contrasts where binocular summation for Head2Go, Matrox Graphics Inc., Quebec, Canada, suprathreshold stimuli is more pronounced (Bearse & http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/gxm/ Freeman, 1994). Alternatively, if improved FS under dh2go/analog). binocular viewing is due to the activation of vergence An infrared eye tracker (EyeLink-II, 500 Hz, SR and fusion mechanisms, binocular viewing should Research, Osgoode, Canada, http://www.sr-research. provide a relatively constant improvement in FS com/EL_II.html) was used to record fixational eye relative to monocular viewing across the whole contrast movements. Nine-point calibrations were completed range. for each eye separately. In Experiment 2, we tested whether interocular suppression affected FS in normal observers using binocular rivalry, which causes alternating suppression Participants of each eye. Binocular rivalry has been found to increase the rate of microsaccades (Sabrin & Kertesz, All participants provided informed, written consent, 1980, 1983), which may make fixation less stable. and the study was approved by the office of research Reduced FS during binocular rivalry would indicate ethics, University of Waterloo. All the procedures that interocular suppression can influence FS. involved adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki. Normal Finally, in Experiment 3, we measured FS across a observers had best corrected visual acuity of 20/20 or range of interocular contrast differences in normal better in each eye, stereoacuity of ,60 s of arc (Randot observers and participants with anisometropic ambly- test) and no strabismus. Eye dominance was assessed opia. We hypothesized that interocular contrasts using the Porta sighting test. Participants with anisome- favoring the amblyopic eye would improve amblyopic tropic amblyopia had an interocular VA difference of at eye FS by reducing interocular suppression as has been least 2 logMAR lines and a fellow eye visual acuity reported for strabismic amblyopia (Raveendran et al., 0.02 logMAR. Anisometropia was defined as an 2014). Conversely, we hypothesized that large inter- interocular refractive error difference of 1.50 diopter ocular contrast differences would impair FS in normal spherical equivalent. Downloaded