Ocular Dominance Diagnosis and Its Influence in Monovision

Purpose To analyze the response of normal emmetropic subjects to different ocular dominance tests and to analyze the influence of this response in surgically induced monovision. Design A prospective study of diagnostic accuracy was carried out to analyze the different tests to determine ocular domin...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of ophthalmology 2007-08, Vol.144 (2), p.209-216.e1
Hauptverfasser: Seijas, Olga, Gómez de Liaño, Pilar, Gómez de Liaño, Rosario, Roberts, Clare J, Piedrahita, Elena, Diaz, Ester
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 216.e1
container_issue 2
container_start_page 209
container_title American journal of ophthalmology
container_volume 144
creator Seijas, Olga
Gómez de Liaño, Pilar
Gómez de Liaño, Rosario
Roberts, Clare J
Piedrahita, Elena
Diaz, Ester
description Purpose To analyze the response of normal emmetropic subjects to different ocular dominance tests and to analyze the influence of this response in surgically induced monovision. Design A prospective study of diagnostic accuracy was carried out to analyze the different tests to determine ocular dominance, without a gold standard test. Methods Nine different tests were carried out in a group of 51 emmetropic subjects to determine both motor and sensory ocular dominance. For analysis, patients were divided into two groups according to age. Normal ophthalmologic examination results were the inclusion requirement, with normal binocular vision and good stereoacuity. Results A significant percentage of uncertain or ambiguous results in all tests performed was found, except in the hole-in-card and kaleidoscope tests. When the tests were compared, two by two, the correlation or equivalence found was low and was much lower if tests were compared three by three. Conclusions No clear ocular dominance was found in most studied subjects; instead, there must be a constant alternating balance between both eyes in most emmetropic persons, but not in those with pathologic features. This fact would explain the great variability both between and within different kinds of tests. Also, it would establish that the monovision technique is well tolerated in most patients, with unsuccessful results only in those patients with strong or clear dominance. Consequently, it seems appropriate to evaluate patient’s dominance before monovision surgery to exclude those individuals with clear dominance.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.03.053
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68101311</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0002939407003364</els_id><sourcerecordid>3556447471</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c464t-1efa9af0f7e0ed4d4f952232fe3205c819b6061e7a6c0958f0e7ef4d9912d60d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU2LFDEQhoMo7rj6A7xIg-it20onnXQUBNn1Y2BlD-o5ZJOKpO1J1mR6Yf-9aWZgYA-eQsjzVqqeIuQlhY4CFe-mzkyp6wFkB6yDgT0iGzpK1dJR0cdkAwB9q5jiZ-RZKVO9CsnlU3JG5cAYhXFD3l_bZTa5uUy7EE202FwG8zumEkpjomu2-9Jso58XXN9CbL6nmO5CCSk-J0-8mQu-OJ7n5NeXzz8vvrVX11-3F5-uWssF37cUvVHGg5cI6LjjXg19z3qPrIfBjlTdCBAUpREW1DB6QImeO6Vo7wQ4dk7eHure5vR3wbLXu1AszrOJmJaixVhlMEor-PoBOKUlx9qbpoJzJVnPZaXogbI5lZLR69scdibfawp61aonXbXqVasGpqvWmnl1rLzc7NCdEkePFXhzBEyxZva5qgzlxKm6Fq7WQh8OHFZhdwGzLjasal3IaPfapfDfNj4-SNs5xFA__IP3WE7T6tJr0D_W_a_rBwnAmODsH9eqp6Y</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1644973247</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ocular Dominance Diagnosis and Its Influence in Monovision</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Seijas, Olga ; Gómez de Liaño, Pilar ; Gómez de Liaño, Rosario ; Roberts, Clare J ; Piedrahita, Elena ; Diaz, Ester</creator><creatorcontrib>Seijas, Olga ; Gómez de Liaño, Pilar ; Gómez de Liaño, Rosario ; Roberts, Clare J ; Piedrahita, Elena ; Diaz, Ester</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose To analyze the response of normal emmetropic subjects to different ocular dominance tests and to analyze the influence of this response in surgically induced monovision. Design A prospective study of diagnostic accuracy was carried out to analyze the different tests to determine ocular dominance, without a gold standard test. Methods Nine different tests were carried out in a group of 51 emmetropic subjects to determine both motor and sensory ocular dominance. For analysis, patients were divided into two groups according to age. Normal ophthalmologic examination results were the inclusion requirement, with normal binocular vision and good stereoacuity. Results A significant percentage of uncertain or ambiguous results in all tests performed was found, except in the hole-in-card and kaleidoscope tests. When the tests were compared, two by two, the correlation or equivalence found was low and was much lower if tests were compared three by three. Conclusions No clear ocular dominance was found in most studied subjects; instead, there must be a constant alternating balance between both eyes in most emmetropic persons, but not in those with pathologic features. This fact would explain the great variability both between and within different kinds of tests. Also, it would establish that the monovision technique is well tolerated in most patients, with unsuccessful results only in those patients with strong or clear dominance. Consequently, it seems appropriate to evaluate patient’s dominance before monovision surgery to exclude those individuals with clear dominance.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9394</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1891</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.03.053</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17533108</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJOPAA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Age ; Biological and medical sciences ; Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological - instrumentation ; Distance Perception - physiology ; Dominance, Ocular - physiology ; Equipment Design ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Miscellaneous ; Ophthalmology ; Patients ; Prospective Studies ; Reference Values ; Reproducibility of Results ; Vision Disorders - diagnosis ; Vision, Binocular - physiology ; Vision, Monocular - physiology</subject><ispartof>American journal of ophthalmology, 2007-08, Vol.144 (2), p.209-216.e1</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2007 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited Aug 2007</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c464t-1efa9af0f7e0ed4d4f952232fe3205c819b6061e7a6c0958f0e7ef4d9912d60d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c464t-1efa9af0f7e0ed4d4f952232fe3205c819b6061e7a6c0958f0e7ef4d9912d60d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002939407003364$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=19187493$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17533108$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Seijas, Olga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gómez de Liaño, Pilar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gómez de Liaño, Rosario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Clare J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piedrahita, Elena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diaz, Ester</creatorcontrib><title>Ocular Dominance Diagnosis and Its Influence in Monovision</title><title>American journal of ophthalmology</title><addtitle>Am J Ophthalmol</addtitle><description>Purpose To analyze the response of normal emmetropic subjects to different ocular dominance tests and to analyze the influence of this response in surgically induced monovision. Design A prospective study of diagnostic accuracy was carried out to analyze the different tests to determine ocular dominance, without a gold standard test. Methods Nine different tests were carried out in a group of 51 emmetropic subjects to determine both motor and sensory ocular dominance. For analysis, patients were divided into two groups according to age. Normal ophthalmologic examination results were the inclusion requirement, with normal binocular vision and good stereoacuity. Results A significant percentage of uncertain or ambiguous results in all tests performed was found, except in the hole-in-card and kaleidoscope tests. When the tests were compared, two by two, the correlation or equivalence found was low and was much lower if tests were compared three by three. Conclusions No clear ocular dominance was found in most studied subjects; instead, there must be a constant alternating balance between both eyes in most emmetropic persons, but not in those with pathologic features. This fact would explain the great variability both between and within different kinds of tests. Also, it would establish that the monovision technique is well tolerated in most patients, with unsuccessful results only in those patients with strong or clear dominance. Consequently, it seems appropriate to evaluate patient’s dominance before monovision surgery to exclude those individuals with clear dominance.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological - instrumentation</subject><subject>Distance Perception - physiology</subject><subject>Dominance, Ocular - physiology</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Ophthalmology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Reference Values</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Vision Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Vision, Binocular - physiology</subject><subject>Vision, Monocular - physiology</subject><issn>0002-9394</issn><issn>1879-1891</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU2LFDEQhoMo7rj6A7xIg-it20onnXQUBNn1Y2BlD-o5ZJOKpO1J1mR6Yf-9aWZgYA-eQsjzVqqeIuQlhY4CFe-mzkyp6wFkB6yDgT0iGzpK1dJR0cdkAwB9q5jiZ-RZKVO9CsnlU3JG5cAYhXFD3l_bZTa5uUy7EE202FwG8zumEkpjomu2-9Jso58XXN9CbL6nmO5CCSk-J0-8mQu-OJ7n5NeXzz8vvrVX11-3F5-uWssF37cUvVHGg5cI6LjjXg19z3qPrIfBjlTdCBAUpREW1DB6QImeO6Vo7wQ4dk7eHure5vR3wbLXu1AszrOJmJaixVhlMEor-PoBOKUlx9qbpoJzJVnPZaXogbI5lZLR69scdibfawp61aonXbXqVasGpqvWmnl1rLzc7NCdEkePFXhzBEyxZva5qgzlxKm6Fq7WQh8OHFZhdwGzLjasal3IaPfapfDfNj4-SNs5xFA__IP3WE7T6tJr0D_W_a_rBwnAmODsH9eqp6Y</recordid><startdate>20070801</startdate><enddate>20070801</enddate><creator>Seijas, Olga</creator><creator>Gómez de Liaño, Pilar</creator><creator>Gómez de Liaño, Rosario</creator><creator>Roberts, Clare J</creator><creator>Piedrahita, Elena</creator><creator>Diaz, Ester</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070801</creationdate><title>Ocular Dominance Diagnosis and Its Influence in Monovision</title><author>Seijas, Olga ; Gómez de Liaño, Pilar ; Gómez de Liaño, Rosario ; Roberts, Clare J ; Piedrahita, Elena ; Diaz, Ester</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c464t-1efa9af0f7e0ed4d4f952232fe3205c819b6061e7a6c0958f0e7ef4d9912d60d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological - instrumentation</topic><topic>Distance Perception - physiology</topic><topic>Dominance, Ocular - physiology</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Ophthalmology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Reference Values</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Vision Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Vision, Binocular - physiology</topic><topic>Vision, Monocular - physiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Seijas, Olga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gómez de Liaño, Pilar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gómez de Liaño, Rosario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Clare J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piedrahita, Elena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diaz, Ester</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of ophthalmology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Seijas, Olga</au><au>Gómez de Liaño, Pilar</au><au>Gómez de Liaño, Rosario</au><au>Roberts, Clare J</au><au>Piedrahita, Elena</au><au>Diaz, Ester</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ocular Dominance Diagnosis and Its Influence in Monovision</atitle><jtitle>American journal of ophthalmology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Ophthalmol</addtitle><date>2007-08-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>144</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>209</spage><epage>216.e1</epage><pages>209-216.e1</pages><issn>0002-9394</issn><eissn>1879-1891</eissn><coden>AJOPAA</coden><abstract>Purpose To analyze the response of normal emmetropic subjects to different ocular dominance tests and to analyze the influence of this response in surgically induced monovision. Design A prospective study of diagnostic accuracy was carried out to analyze the different tests to determine ocular dominance, without a gold standard test. Methods Nine different tests were carried out in a group of 51 emmetropic subjects to determine both motor and sensory ocular dominance. For analysis, patients were divided into two groups according to age. Normal ophthalmologic examination results were the inclusion requirement, with normal binocular vision and good stereoacuity. Results A significant percentage of uncertain or ambiguous results in all tests performed was found, except in the hole-in-card and kaleidoscope tests. When the tests were compared, two by two, the correlation or equivalence found was low and was much lower if tests were compared three by three. Conclusions No clear ocular dominance was found in most studied subjects; instead, there must be a constant alternating balance between both eyes in most emmetropic persons, but not in those with pathologic features. This fact would explain the great variability both between and within different kinds of tests. Also, it would establish that the monovision technique is well tolerated in most patients, with unsuccessful results only in those patients with strong or clear dominance. Consequently, it seems appropriate to evaluate patient’s dominance before monovision surgery to exclude those individuals with clear dominance.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>17533108</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ajo.2007.03.053</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0002-9394
ispartof American journal of ophthalmology, 2007-08, Vol.144 (2), p.209-216.e1
issn 0002-9394
1879-1891
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68101311
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Age
Biological and medical sciences
Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological - instrumentation
Distance Perception - physiology
Dominance, Ocular - physiology
Equipment Design
Female
Humans
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Miscellaneous
Ophthalmology
Patients
Prospective Studies
Reference Values
Reproducibility of Results
Vision Disorders - diagnosis
Vision, Binocular - physiology
Vision, Monocular - physiology
title Ocular Dominance Diagnosis and Its Influence in Monovision
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T14%3A30%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ocular%20Dominance%20Diagnosis%20and%20Its%20Influence%20in%20Monovision&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20ophthalmology&rft.au=Seijas,%20Olga&rft.date=2007-08-01&rft.volume=144&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=209&rft.epage=216.e1&rft.pages=209-216.e1&rft.issn=0002-9394&rft.eissn=1879-1891&rft.coden=AJOPAA&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ajo.2007.03.053&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3556447471%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1644973247&rft_id=info:pmid/17533108&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0002939407003364&rfr_iscdi=true