Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 9/2005

01-09-2005 | Laboratory Investigation

Eye preference within the context of binocular functions

Authors: Walter H. Ehrenstein, Birgit E. Arnold-Schulz-Gahmen, Wolfgang Jaschinski

Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology | Issue 9/2005

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Eye preference refers to an asymmetric use of the two eyes, but it does not imply a unitary asymmetry between the eyes. Many different methods are used to assess eye preference, including eyedness questionnaires and sighting tasks that require binocular and monocular alignment of a target through a hole in the middle of a card or funnel. The results of these coarse accounts of eye preference are useful as a first screening, but do not allow for graded quantification of the manifested asymmetry in binocular vision. Moreover, they often concern only a rather selective range of binocular functions. The aim of the present study was to further differentiate eye preference within the context of other binocular functions as measured in standard optometric tests, and to validate their relation to questionnaire data of eyedness.

Methods

Conventional accounts of eye preference (German adaptation of Coren’s questionnaire and a sighting task) were compared with various optometric tests of binocular function within a sample of 103 subjects. Examination included visual acuity and accommodation in each eye, stereoscopic prevalence, suppression due to binocular rivalry, fixation disparity (Mallett test).

Results

Sighting dominance was leftward in 32% and rightward in 68% of the cases and was highly correlated (Kendall’s τb=0.70) with eyedness. Further significant associations were restricted to stereoscopic prevalence which correlated with sighting dominance (τb=0.55), eyedness (τb=0.50), and rivalry dominance (τb=0.28).

Conclusion

Eye preference seems to be essentially reflected by eyedness, sighting dominance, and stereoscopic prevalence, but largely unrelated to fixation disparity, accommodation, and visual acuity.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Annett M (1999) Eye dominance in families predicted by the right shift theory. Laterality 4:167–172 Annett M (1999) Eye dominance in families predicted by the right shift theory. Laterality 4:167–172
2.
go back to reference Arnold-Schulz-Gahmen BE, Siefer A, Ehrenstein WH (2004) Eye-dominance distributions differ between men and women. Perception 33(suppl):97c Arnold-Schulz-Gahmen BE, Siefer A, Ehrenstein WH (2004) Eye-dominance distributions differ between men and women. Perception 33(suppl):97c
3.
go back to reference Brackenridge CJ (1982) The contribution of genetic factors to ocular dominance. Behav Genet 12:319–325 Brackenridge CJ (1982) The contribution of genetic factors to ocular dominance. Behav Genet 12:319–325
4.
go back to reference Conover WJ (1999) Practical nonparametric statistics. Wiley, New York Conover WJ (1999) Practical nonparametric statistics. Wiley, New York
5.
go back to reference Coren S (1993) The lateral preference inventory for measurement of handedness, footedness, eyedness, and earedness: norms for young adults. Bull Psychon Soc 31:1–3 Coren S (1993) The lateral preference inventory for measurement of handedness, footedness, eyedness, and earedness: norms for young adults. Bull Psychon Soc 31:1–3
6.
go back to reference Coren S, Kaplan CP (1973) Patterns of ocular dominance. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 50:283–292 Coren S, Kaplan CP (1973) Patterns of ocular dominance. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 50:283–292
7.
go back to reference Crider BA (1944) A battery of tests for the dominant eye. J Genet Psychol 31:179–190 Crider BA (1944) A battery of tests for the dominant eye. J Genet Psychol 31:179–190
8.
go back to reference Davson H (1990) Physiology of the eye, 5th edn. MacMillan, London Davson H (1990) Physiology of the eye, 5th edn. MacMillan, London
9.
go back to reference Dodrill CB, Thoreson NS (1993) Reliability of the lateral dominance examination. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 15:183–190 Dodrill CB, Thoreson NS (1993) Reliability of the lateral dominance examination. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 15:183–190
11.
go back to reference Ehrenstein WH, Wagner M (2004) Eye dominance and interocular stability of oculomotor behaviour during fixation on 2-D surface for restrained and unrestrained head postures. Perception 33(suppl):94b Ehrenstein WH, Wagner M (2004) Eye dominance and interocular stability of oculomotor behaviour during fixation on 2-D surface for restrained and unrestrained head postures. Perception 33(suppl):94b
12.
go back to reference Erdogan R, Ozdikici M, Aydin MD, Aktas O, Dane S (2002) Right and left visual cortex in healthy subjects with right- and left-eye dominance. Int J Neurosci 112:517–523 Erdogan R, Ozdikici M, Aydin MD, Aktas O, Dane S (2002) Right and left visual cortex in healthy subjects with right- and left-eye dominance. Int J Neurosci 112:517–523
13.
go back to reference Gerling J, de Paz H, Schroth V, Bach M, Kommerell G (2000) Ist die Feststellung einer Fixationsdisparation mit der Mess- und Korrekturmethodik nach H.-J. Haase (MKH) verlässlich? Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 216:401–411 Gerling J, de Paz H, Schroth V, Bach M, Kommerell G (2000) Ist die Feststellung einer Fixationsdisparation mit der Mess- und Korrekturmethodik nach H.-J. Haase (MKH) verlässlich? Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 216:401–411
14.
go back to reference Haase HJ (1995) Zur Fixationsdisparation. Heidelberg: Verlag Optische Fachveröffentlichung GmbH (ISBN 3-922269-17-6) Haase HJ (1995) Zur Fixationsdisparation. Heidelberg: Verlag Optische Fachveröffentlichung GmbH (ISBN 3-922269-17-6)
15.
go back to reference Howard IP (2002) Seeing in depth, vol. 1. Basic mechanisms. Toronto: I. Porteous Howard IP (2002) Seeing in depth, vol. 1. Basic mechanisms. Toronto: I. Porteous
16.
go back to reference Howard IP, Rogers BJ (2002) Seeing in depth, vol. 2. Depth perception. Toronto: I. Porteous Howard IP, Rogers BJ (2002) Seeing in depth, vol. 2. Depth perception. Toronto: I. Porteous
17.
go back to reference Jaschinski W (2001) Methods for measuring the proximity–fixation–disparity curve. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 21:368–375 Jaschinski W (2001) Methods for measuring the proximity–fixation–disparity curve. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 21:368–375
18.
go back to reference Khan AZ, Crawford JD (2001) Ocular dominance reverses as a function of gaze angle. Vis Res 41:1743–1748 Khan AZ, Crawford JD (2001) Ocular dominance reverses as a function of gaze angle. Vis Res 41:1743–1748
19.
go back to reference Khan AZ, Crawford JD (2003) Coordinating one hand with two eyes: optimizing for field of view in a pointing task. Vis Res 43:409–417 Khan AZ, Crawford JD (2003) Coordinating one hand with two eyes: optimizing for field of view in a pointing task. Vis Res 43:409–417
20.
go back to reference Kommerell G, Schmitt C, Kromeier M, Bach M (2003) Ocular prevalence versus ocular dominance. Vis Res 43:1397–1403 Kommerell G, Schmitt C, Kromeier M, Bach M (2003) Ocular prevalence versus ocular dominance. Vis Res 43:1397–1403
21.
go back to reference Kromeier M, Schmitt C, Bach M, Kommerell G (2002) Bessern Prismen nach Hans-Joachim Haase die Augenprävalenz? Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 219:422–428 Kromeier M, Schmitt C, Bach M, Kommerell G (2002) Bessern Prismen nach Hans-Joachim Haase die Augenprävalenz? Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 219:422–428
22.
go back to reference Mallett RF (1964) The investigation of heterophoria at near and a new fixation disparity technique. Optician 148:547–551 Mallett RF (1964) The investigation of heterophoria at near and a new fixation disparity technique. Optician 148:547–551
23.
go back to reference Mapp AP, Ono H, Barbeito R (2003) What does the dominant eye dominate? A brief and somewhat contentious review. Percept Psychophys 65:310–317 Mapp AP, Ono H, Barbeito R (2003) What does the dominant eye dominate? A brief and somewhat contentious review. Percept Psychophys 65:310–317
24.
go back to reference Matsumura I, Maruyama S, Ishikawa Y, Hirano R, Kobayashi K, Kohayakawa S (1983) The design of an open view autorefractor. In: Breining GM, Siegel IM (Eds), Advances in diagnostic visual optics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 36–42 Matsumura I, Maruyama S, Ishikawa Y, Hirano R, Kobayashi K, Kohayakawa S (1983) The design of an open view autorefractor. In: Breining GM, Siegel IM (Eds), Advances in diagnostic visual optics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 36–42
25.
go back to reference McBrien NA, Millodot M (1985) Clinical evaluation of the Canon Autoref R-1. Am J Optom Opt 62:786–792 McBrien NA, Millodot M (1985) Clinical evaluation of the Canon Autoref R-1. Am J Optom Opt 62:786–792
26.
go back to reference Menon RS, Ogawa S, Strupp JP, Ugurbil K (1997) Ocular dominance in human V1 demonstrated by functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurophysiol 77:2780–2787 Menon RS, Ogawa S, Strupp JP, Ugurbil K (1997) Ocular dominance in human V1 demonstrated by functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurophysiol 77:2780–2787
27.
go back to reference Miles W (1930) Ocular dominance in human adults. J Genet Psychol 3:412–429 Miles W (1930) Ocular dominance in human adults. J Genet Psychol 3:412–429
28.
go back to reference Porac C, Coren S (1975) Suppressive processes in binocular vision: ocular dominance and amblyopia. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 52:651–657 Porac C, Coren S (1975) Suppressive processes in binocular vision: ocular dominance and amblyopia. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 52:651–657
29.
go back to reference Porac C, Coren S (1976) The dominant eye. Psychol Bull 83:880–897 Porac C, Coren S (1976) The dominant eye. Psychol Bull 83:880–897
30.
go back to reference Porac C, Coren S (1981) Lateral preferences and human behavior. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Porac C, Coren S (1981) Lateral preferences and human behavior. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
31.
go back to reference Reiss M, Reiss G (1997) Ocular dominance: some family data. Laterality 2:7–15 Reiss M, Reiss G (1997) Ocular dominance: some family data. Laterality 2:7–15
32.
go back to reference Rombouts AR, Barkhof F, Sprenger M, Valk J, Scheltens P (1996) The functional basis of ocular dominance: functional MRI (fMRI) findings. Neurosci Lett 221:1–4 Rombouts AR, Barkhof F, Sprenger M, Valk J, Scheltens P (1996) The functional basis of ocular dominance: functional MRI (fMRI) findings. Neurosci Lett 221:1–4
33.
go back to reference Rosenbach O (1903) Ueber monokulare Vorherrschaft beim binokularen Sehen. Münchener Medizin Wochenschr 30:1290–1292 Rosenbach O (1903) Ueber monokulare Vorherrschaft beim binokularen Sehen. Münchener Medizin Wochenschr 30:1290–1292
34.
go back to reference Smith EL III, Levi DM, Manny RE, Harwerth RS, White JM (1985) The relationship between binocular rivalry and strabismic suppression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 29:80–87 Smith EL III, Levi DM, Manny RE, Harwerth RS, White JM (1985) The relationship between binocular rivalry and strabismic suppression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 29:80–87
35.
go back to reference von Noorden GK (1990) Binocular vision and ocular motility. Mosby, St Louis von Noorden GK (1990) Binocular vision and ocular motility. Mosby, St Louis
36.
go back to reference Wade NJ (1998) Early studies of eye dominances. Laterality 3:97–108 Wade NJ (1998) Early studies of eye dominances. Laterality 3:97–108
37.
go back to reference Walls GL (1951) A theory of ocular dominance. Arch Ophthalmol 45:387–412 Walls GL (1951) A theory of ocular dominance. Arch Ophthalmol 45:387–412
Metadata
Title
Eye preference within the context of binocular functions
Authors
Walter H. Ehrenstein
Birgit E. Arnold-Schulz-Gahmen
Wolfgang Jaschinski
Publication date
01-09-2005
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology / Issue 9/2005
Print ISSN: 0721-832X
Electronic ISSN: 1435-702X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-005-1128-7

Other articles of this Issue 9/2005

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 9/2005 Go to the issue