|
|
Effect of Simulated Monovision on Crowding |
Zuopao Zhuo1, Jun Jiang1, Junping Huang2, Zheyi Chen1, Binbin Su1, Bin Zhang3 |
1Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou 325027, China 2Henan Eye Hospital, Zhengzhou 450003, China 3College of Optometry, Nova Southeastern University, Davie, Florida 33314, United States |
|
|
Abstract Objective: To test whether crowding is much more severe under simulated monovision conditions.Methods: This was an experimental study. Twenty subjects participated in this experimental study from March to November 2015 in Wenzhou Medical University. Both eyes viewed clear images under normal conditions. While under the simulated monovision condition, one eye viewed a clear image (OD), and the other eye viewed a blurred image (0.75, 1.50, 2.50, 3.50 D). The eccentricities of the target in this study were 2.5°, 5.0°, and 7.5°. The threshold of the crowding effect was measured by a staircase method. Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures and a t-test with Bonferroni correction were used to test whether crowding was much more severe under the simulated monovision condition. Results: Crowding depended significantly on intraocular blur (F=13.37, P<0.001) and eccentricity (Ecc) (F=296.90, P<0.001). Significant interactions between intraocular blur and Ecc were found (F=4.03, P<0.001). When the eccentricity was 7.5° or 5.0°, intraocular blur significantly affected the critical gap size of crowding (F=8.59, P<0.001; F=3.74, P=0.01). However, intraocular blur did not affect the critical gap size of crowding when the eccentricity was 2.5°(F=1.13, P=0.34). Conclusions: Crowding is much more severe under simulated monovision conditions than normal conditions, and the difference is dependent on intraocular blur and eccentricity.
|
Received: 29 January 2018
|
Fund: Public Welfare Project of Wenzhou Science Technology Bureau (Y20150264); Project of Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University (YNKT201602) |
Corresponding Authors:
Bin Zhang, College of Optometry, Nova Southeastern University, Davie, Florida 33314,
United States (Email: bz52@nova.edu)
|
|
|
|
[1] |
Papadopoulos PA, Papadopoulos AP. Current management of
|
|
presbyopia. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol, 2014, 21(1): 10-17.
|
|
DOI: 10.4103/0974-9233.124080.
|
[2] |
Evans BJ. Monovision: A review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2007,
|
27 |
(5): 417-439. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2007.00488.x.
|
[3] |
Arnold DH, Grove PM, Wallis TSA. Staying focused: A functional account of perceptual suppression during binocular
|
|
rivalry. J Vis, 2007, 7(7): 1-8. DOI: 10.1167/7.7.7.
|
[4] |
Norman HF, Norman JF, Bilotta J. The temporal course of
|
|
suppression during binocular rivalry. Perception, 2000, 29(7):
|
83 |
1-841. DOI: 10.1068/p3085.
|
[5] |
Blake R, Logothetis NK. Visual competition. Nat Rev Neurosci,
|
20 |
02, 3(1), 13-21. DOI: 10.1038/nrn701.
|
[6] |
Westin E, Wick B, Harrist RB. Factors influencing success
|
|
of monovision contact lens fitting: Survey of contact lens
|
|
diplomates. Optometry, 2000, 71(12): 757-763.
|
[7] |
Levi DM. Crowding-An essential bottleneck for object
|
|
recognition: A mini-review. Vision Res, 2008, 48(5): 635-654.
|
|
DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2007.12.009.
|
[8] |
Pelli DG, Palomares M, Majaj NJ. Crowding is unlike ordinary
|
|
masking: Distinguishing feature integration from detection. J
|
|
Vis, 2004, 4(12): 1136-1169. DOI: 10.1167/4.12.12.
|
[9] |
Bouma H. Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition.
|
|
Nature, 1970, 226(5241): 177-178.
|
[10] |
Norgett Y, Siderov J. Effect of stimulus configuration on
|
|
crowding in strabismic amblyopia. J Vis, 2017, 17(13): 5. DOI:
|
10 |
1167/17.13.5.
|
[11] |
Barollo M, Contemori G, Battaglini L, et al. Perceptual learning
|
|
improves contrast sensitivity, visual acuity, and foveal crowding
|
|
in amblyopia. Restor Neurol Neurosci, 2017, 35(5): 483-496.
|
|
DOI: 10.3233/RNN-170731.
|
[12] |
Blake R. A primer on binocular rivalry. Brain and Mind, 2001,
|
2( |
1): 5-38.
|
[13] |
Vickery TJ, Shim WM, Chakravarthi R, et al. Supercrowding:
|
|
Weakly masking a target expands the range of crowding. J Vis,
|
20 |
09, 9(2): 12.1-15. DOI: 10.1167/9.2.12.
|
[14] |
Kim S, Shin E, Chong SC. When crowding meets binocular
|
|
rivalry: Challenges for object perception. Vision Res, 2013,
|
76 |
(1): 134-143. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2012.10.020.
|
[15] |
Ramke J, du Toit R, Palagyi A, et al. Correction of refractive
|
|
error and presbyopia in Timor-Leste. Br J Ophthalmol, 2007,
|
91 |
(7): 860-866. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2006.110502.
|
[16] |
Census data and global changes in demographics. Available at
|
|
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/broker. Accessed June 18, 2015.
|
[17] |
唐静, 邓应平, 邱乐梅. 改良单眼视LASIK手术矫正老视的
|
|
疗效. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2012, 14(6): 360-364.
|
|
DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845x.2012.06.010.
|
[18] |
Chakravarthi R, Cavanagh P. Recovery of a crowded object
|
|
by masking the flankers: Determining the locus of feature
|
|
integration. J Vis, 2009, 9(10): 4.1-9. DOI: 10.1167/9.10.4.
|
[19] |
Freeman J, Donner TH, Heeger DJ. Inter-area correlations in the
|
|
ventral visual pathway reflect feature integration. J Vis, 2011,
|
11 |
(4): 1-23. DOI: 10.1167/11.4.15.
|
[20] |
Greenwood JA, Bex PJ, Dakin SC. Crowding follows the
|
|
binding of relative position and orientation. J Vis, 2012, 12(3):
|
18 |
DOI: 10.1167/12.3.18.
|
[21] |
Greenwood JA, Bex PJ, Dakin SC. Positional averaging explains
|
|
crowding with letter-like stimuli. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,
|
20 |
09, 106(31): 13130-13135. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0901352106.
|
[22] |
Motter BC, Simoni DA. The roles of cortical image separation
|
|
and size in active visual search performance. J Vis, 2007, 7(2):
|
6. |
1-15. DOI: 10.1167/7.2.6.
|
[23] |
Zheleznyak L, Alarcon A, Dieter KC, et al. The role of sensory
|
|
ocular dominance on through-focus visual performance in
|
|
monovision presbyopia corrections. J Vis, 2015, 15(6): 17.DOI:
|
10 |
1167/15.6.17.
|
|
|
|