Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Binocular contrast summation and inhibition in amblyopia

The influence of the interocular difference on binocular contrast sensitivity

  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 anisometropic) 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gstalder RJ, Green DG. Laser interferometric acuity in amblyopia. J Pediatr Ophthalmol 1971; 8: 251–56.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Thomas J. Normal and amblyopic contrast sensitivity functions in central and peripheral retinas. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 1978; 17: 746–53.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Yap M. Clinical application of contrast sensitivity in visual dysfunction. PhD Thesis, University of Bradford, 1985.

  4. Bradley A, Freeman RD. Contrast sensitivity in anisometropic amblyopia. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 1981; 21: 467–76.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hess R, Howell ER. The threshold contrast sensitivity function in strabismic amblyopia, independence for two type classification. Vis Res 1977; 17: 1049–55.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hess R, Campbell F, Zimmerman R. Differences in the neural basis of human amblyopias: The effect of mean luminance. Vis Res 1980; 20: 295–305.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ziel C, Schmeisser E. Flicker VEP in amblyopes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci (Suppl) 1990; 31: 605.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Blake R, Fox R. The psychophysical inquiry into binocular summation. Percept Psychophysics 1973; 14: 161–85.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Blake R, Sloane M, Fox R. Further developments in binocular summation. Percept Psychophysics 1981; 30: 266–76.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Campbell F, Green D. Monocular versus binocular visual acuity. Nature 1965; 208: 191–92.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Eriksen C. Independence of successive inputs and uncorrelated error in visual form perception. J Exp Psychol 1966; 72: 26–35.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lema SA, Blake R. Binocular summation in normal and stereoblind humans. Vis Res 1977; 17: 691–95.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sireteanu R. Binocular luminance summation in humans with defective binocular vision. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 1987; 28: 349–55.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sireteanu R, Altman I. Binocular luminance summation in young kittens and adult strabismic cats. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 1987; 28: 343–48.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Blake R, Martens W, Gianfilippo AD. Reaction time as a measure of binocular interaction in human vision. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 1980; 19: 930–41.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Levi D, Harwerth R, Manny R. Suprathreshold spatial frequency detection and binocular interaction in strabismic and anisometropic amblyopia. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 1979; 18: 714–25.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Birch E, Held R. The development of binocular summation in human infants. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 1983; 24: 1103.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sireteanu R, Fronius M, Singer W. Binocular interactions in the peripheral visual fields of humans with strabismic and anisometropic amblyopia. Vis Res 1981; 21: 1065–74.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Shea SL, Doussard-Roosevelt JA, Aslin RH. Pupillary measurements of binocular luminance summation in infants and stereoblind adults. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 1985; 26: 1064.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Shea SL, Aslin RH, McCulloch. Binocular VEP summation in infants and adults with abnormal binocular histories. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 1987; 28: 356–65.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Holopigian K, Blake R, Greenwald M. Selective losses in binocular vision in anisometropic amblyopes. Vis Res 1986; 26: 621–30.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pardhan S, Gilchrist J. The effect of monocular defocus on binocular contrast sensitivity. Ophth Physiol Opt 1990; 10: 33–36.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pardhan S, Gilchrist J. Binocular contrast sensitivity with monocular glare disability. Ophth Physiol Opt 1990; 10: 37–39.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pardhan S, Gilchrist J. The importance of measuring binocular contrast sensitivity in unilateral cataract. Eye 1991; 5: 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Watson A, Pelli D. QUEST: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Percept Psychophysics 1983; 33: 113–20.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Smith EL, Levi DM, Manny RE, Harwerth RS, White JM. The relationship between binocular rivalry and strabismic suppression. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 1985; 26: 80.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Movshon JA, Chambers BE, Blakemore C. Interocular transfer in normal humans and those who lack stereopsis. Perception 1972; 1: 483–90.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mitchell DE, Reardon J, Muir DW. Interocular transfer of the motion aftereffect in normal and stereoblind observers. Exp Brain Res 1975; 22: 535–58.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wade NJ. On interocular transfer of the movement aftereffect in individuals with and without normal binocular vision. Perception 1976; 5: 113.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Levi D, Harweth R, Smith E. Humans deprived of normal binocular vision have binocular interactions tuned to size and orientation. Science 1979; 206: 852–54.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Levi D, Pass A, Manny A. Binocular interactions in normal and anomalous binocular vision: The effects of flicker. Br J Ophthal 1982; 66: 57–63.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Harwerth R, Levi D. Psychophysical studies of binocular processes of amblyopes. Am J Optom Phys Opt 1983; 60: 454–63.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Harrad RA, Hess R. Threshold conditions for strabismic suppression and binocular rivalry in amblyopia. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci (Suppl) 1990; 31: 305.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Holopigian K, Blake R, Greenwald M. Clinical suppression and amblyopia. Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 1988; 29: 444–51.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Selby SA, Woodhouse JM. The spatial frequency dependence of interocular transfer of amblyopes. Vis Res 1981; 21: 1401–08.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Postgraduate School of Studies in Optometry, University of Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK

    Shahina Pardhan PhD, MBCO & Jim Gilchrist

Authors
  1. Shahina Pardhan PhD, MBCO
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jim Gilchrist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pardhan, S., Gilchrist, J. Binocular contrast summation and inhibition in amblyopia. Doc Ophthalmol 82, 239–248 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00160771

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00160771

Key words

Search

Navigation