scholarly journals Reach Kinematics During Binocular Viewing in 7- to 12-Year-Old Children With Strabismus

2021 ◽  
Vol 62 (15) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Krista R. Kelly ◽  
Jeffrey Hunter ◽  
Dorsa Mir Norouzi ◽  
Reed M. Jost ◽  
Ashley J. White ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Binocular Viewing

Binocular and Monocular Coincidence-Anticipation Timing Responses

2018 ◽  
pp. 186-199
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Binocular Viewing ◽  
Monocular Viewing ◽  
Stimulus Velocity ◽  
Time To Collision ◽  
Dominant Eye ◽  
Response Errors ◽  
And Training

Background Coincidence-anticipation timing (CAT) responses require individuals to determine the time at which an approaching object will arrive at (time to collision) or pass by (time to passage) the observer and to then make a response coincident with this time. Previous studies suggest that under some conditions time to collision estimates are more accurate when binocular and monocular cues are combined. The purpose of this study was to compare binocular and monocular coincidence anticipation timing responses with the Bassin Anticipation Timer, a device for testing and training CAT responses. Methods: Useable data were obtained from 20 participants. Coincidence-anticipation timing responses were determined using a Bassin Anticipation Timer over a range of approaching stimulus linear velocities of 5 to 40mph. Participants stood to the left side of the Bassin Anticipation track. The track was below eye height. The participants’ task was to push a button to coincide with arrival of the approaching stimulus at a location immediately adjacent to the participant. CAT responses were made under three randomized conditions: binocular viewing, monocular dominant eye viewing, and monocular non-dominant eye viewing. Results: Signed (constant), unsigned (absolute), and variable (standard deviation) CAT response errors were determined and compared across viewing conditions at each stimulus velocity. There were no significant differences in CAT errors between the conditions at any stimulus velocity, although the differences in signed and unsigned errors approached significance at 40mph. Conclusions: The addition of binocular cues did not result in a reduction in coincidence anticipation timing response errors compared to the monocular viewing conditions. There were no differences in CAT response errors between the monocular dominant eye viewing and monocular non-dominant eye viewing conditions.

The effects of dichoptic and binocular viewing on bistable motion percepts

1989 ◽  
Vol 29 (9) ◽  
pp. 1215-1219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alysia D. Ritter ◽  
Bruno G. Breitmeyer
Keyword(s):  
Binocular Viewing

scholarly journals Effect of Sensitivity Disparity Between the Two Eyes on Pointwise Monocular Sensitivity Under Binocular Viewing in Patients With Glaucoma

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-43
Author(s):  
Akemi Wakayama ◽  
Hiroki Nomoto ◽  
Yasutaka Chiba ◽  
Chota Matsumoto ◽  
Shunji Kusaka
Keyword(s):  
Binocular Viewing

Identifying Absolute Preferred Retinal Locations during Binocular Viewing

2015 ◽  
Vol 92 (8) ◽  
pp. 863-872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luminita Tarita-Nistor ◽  
Moshe Eizenman ◽  
Natalie Landon-Brace ◽  
Samuel N. Markowitz ◽  
Martin J. Steinbach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Binocular Viewing

scholarly journals Fixation instability during binocular viewing in anisometropic and strabismic children

2019 ◽  
Vol 183 ◽  
pp. 29-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krista R. Kelly ◽  
Christina S. Cheng-Patel ◽  
Reed M. Jost ◽  
Yi-Zhong Wang ◽  
Eileen E. Birch
Keyword(s):  
Binocular Viewing

Gaze-Accuracy during Monocular and Binocular Viewing

Perception ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 26 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 371-371
Author(s):  
R M Steinman ◽  
T I Forofonova ◽  
J Epelboim ◽  
M R Stepanov
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Affirmative Answer ◽  
Binocular Viewing ◽  
Control Limit ◽  
Monocular Viewing ◽  
Gaze Control ◽  
The Gaze

Epelboim et al (1996 Vision Research35 3401 – 3422) reported that cyclopean gaze errors were smaller than either eye's during tapping and looking-only tasks. This raised two questions: (i) does cyclopean gaze accuracy require binocular input, and (ii) when only one eye sees, is its gaze more accurate than the patched eye's? Most oculomotorists probably expect an affirmative answer to both. Neither expectation was fulfilled. The Maryland Revolving Field Monitor recorded, with exceptional accuracy, eye movements of two unrestrained subjects tapping or only looking, in a specified order, at four randomly positioned LEDs, with monocular or binocular viewing. Subjects either tapped with their finger tips naturally, or unnaturally via a rod (2 mm diameter, 1.5 cm long), glued to a sewing thimble. Instructions were to be fast, but make no order errors. With binocular viewing, cyclopean gaze accuracy was best during looking-only. During natural tapping, gaze errors increased, becoming no smaller than success required. Both tasks were learned equally fast, but as expected, the younger subject (aged 27 years) performed ∼ 40% faster than the older subject (aged 69 years). Unnatural, monocular viewing produced odd results, eg cyclopean gaze error was smallest when only one eye could see in some conditions. Only the older subject served in the unnatural tapping task because the younger's errors were too close to his gaze control limit. The older subject, who was suitable, reduced his cyclopean gaze error by 56%, from 1.4 to 0.9 deg. These results support our claim that the gaze error allowed is adjusted to the visuomotor demands of different tasks.

scholarly journals Binocular viewing geometry shapes the neural representation of the dynamic three-dimensional environment

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Bonnen ◽  
Thaddeus B. Czuba ◽  
Jake A. Whritner ◽  
Adam Kohn ◽  
Alexander C. Huk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Binocular Viewing ◽  
Neural Representation

scholarly journals Monocular preferences in binocular viewing.

1994 ◽  
Vol 91 (18) ◽  
pp. 8339-8342 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Purves ◽  
L. E. White
Keyword(s):  
Binocular Viewing

Fixation Stability during Binocular Viewing in Patients with Age-Related Macular Degeneration

2011 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 1887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luminita Tarita-Nistor ◽  
Michael H. Brent ◽  
Martin J. Steinbach ◽  
Esther G. González
Keyword(s):  
Macular Degeneration ◽  
Binocular Viewing ◽  
Age Related Macular Degeneration ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Fixation Stability
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document