DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20192507

Evaluation of accommodative function in the dominant and non dominant eye

Oseleonomhen M. Odigie, Precious N. Uwagboe, Omawumi P. Okpaghoro

Abstract


Background: Ocular dominance is the physiological preference of one eye over the other, hence its input is favoured when there is conflicting information to the two eyes. Accommodation is the mechanism by which the eye changes focus from distant to near images and is produced by a change in the shape of the crystalline lens. The aim of this study was to compare the accommodative amplitude, facility and lag in the dominant and non-dominant eye.

Methods: This cross sectional study was carried out on 80 visually normal subjects. Ocular dominance was determined using hole-in-the- card method. Amplitude of accommodation, accommodative facility and response was measured monocularly and randomly using push up method, ±2.00DS flipper lenses and Nott technique respectively.

Results: Results obtained from the study showed that the right eye was dominant in 62.5% of subjects. The mean (SD) for accommodative amplitude, facility and response (lag) in the dominant eye was 11.08 (2.16) D, 10.00 (1.52) cycles per minute and 0.62 (0.27) respectively. The mean (SD) for accommodative amplitude, facility and lag in the non-dominant eye was 10.98 (2.20) D, 9.86 (1.44) cycles per minute and 0.60 (0.25) D respectively.

Conclusions: It may be inferred that the dominant eye has more accommodative amplitude, facility and lag than the non-dominant eye but this difference was not statistically significant.


Keywords


Accommodative amplitude, Accommodative facility, Ocular dominance

Full Text:

PDF

References


Feng J, Zheyi C, Hua B, Edgar E, Jun J. Association between ocular sensory dominance and refractive error asymmetry. PLoS. 2015;10(8):e0136222.

Yang E, Blake R, McDonald JE. A new interocular suppression technique for measuring sensory eye dominance. Investigative Ophthalmol Visual Sci. 2010;51(1):588-93.

Khan AZ, Crawford JD. Ocular dominance reverses as a function of horizontal gaze angle. Vision Res. 2001;41(14):1743-8.

Chia A, Jaurigue A, Gazzard G, Wang Y, Tan D, Stone RA, et al. Ocular dominance, laterality, and refraction in Singaporean children. Investigative Ophthalmol Visual Sci. 2007;48(8):3533-6.

Linke SJ, Baviera J, Stenberg J, Richard G, Katz T. Association between ocular dominance and spherical astigmatism, anisometropia, age and sex: analysis of 10,264 myopic individuals. Investigative Ophthalmol Visual Sci. 2011;52(12):9166-73.

Eser I, Durrie DS, Schwendeman F, Stahl JE. Association between ocular dominance and refraction. J Refract Surg. 2008;24(7):685-9.

Steinman SB, Steinman BA, Garza RP. Foundations of binocular vision: a clinical perspective. McGraw- Hill New York; 2000:24-27.

Sengpiel F, Blakemore C, Kind PC, Harrad R. Interocular suppression in the visual cortex of strabismic cats. J Neurosci. 1994;14(11):6855-71.

Handa T, Mukuno K, Uozato H, Niida T, Shoji N, Shimizu K. Effects of dominant and non-dominant eyes in binocular rivalry. Optomet Vision Sci. 2006;81(5):377-83.

Handa T, Uozato H, Higa R, Nitta M, Kawamorita T, Ishikawa H etc. Quantitative measurement of ocular dominance using binocular rivalry induced by retinometers. J Catar Refract Surg. 2006;32(5):831-6.

Ooi TL, He ZJ. Sensory eye dominance. Optometry. 2001;72(3):168-78.

Horng JL, Semmlow, JL, Hung GK, et al. Dynamic Asymmetries in disparity convergence eye movements. Vision Res. 1998;38(18):2761-8.

Kawata H, Ohtsuka K. Dynamic Asymmetries in Convergence Eye Movements under Natural Viewing Conditions. Jap J Ophthalmol. 2001;45(5):437-44.

Pointer JS. Sighting versus sensory ocular dominance. J Vision. 2012;5(2):52-5.

Borish IM. Clinical refraction. 3rd Ed. Professional press books/ fair child publication. 1970:91-229.

Rutstein RP, Eskridge JB. Clinical evaluation of vertical fixation disparity. Part III. Adaptation to vertical prism. Am J Optomet Physiol Opt. 1985;62(9):585-90.

Pandian A, Sankaridurg PR, Naduvilath T, O'Leary D, Sweeney DF, Rose K, et al. Accommodative facility in eyes with and without myopia. Investigative Ophthalmol Visual Sci. 2006;47(11):4725-31.

Ibi K. Characteristic of dynamic accommodation responses. Comparison between the dominant and non-dominant eyes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1997;17(1):44-54.

Momeni-Moghaddam H, McAlinden C, Azimi A. Comparing accommodative function between the dominant and non-dominant eye. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252(3):509-14.

Fujimura F, Handa T, Kawamorita T, Shoji N. The Effect of Ocular Dominance on Accommodation and Miosis under Binocular Open Viewing Conditions. Open J Ophthalmol. 2017;7(3):158.

Eskridge JB, Amos JF, Bartlett JD. Clinical procedures in optometry. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1991: 687-691.

Cheiman M, Wick B. Clinical management of binocular: heterophoric, accommodative and eye movement disorders, 3rd Ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008: 350.

Firth AY. Adie syndrome: evidence for refractive error and accommodative asymmetry as the cause of amblyopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 1992;128(1):416-8.

Tsuneyoshi Y, Negishi K, Tsubota K. Importance of accommodation and eye dominance for measuring objective refractions. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;177:69-76.

Chen J, Wang ZZ, Yu XP, Wang YW. Accommodative function in adolescent hyperopic anisometropes. Chin J Optom Ophthalmol. 2009;4(11):254-6.