PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 3976832

Fixation disparity vs. binocular fixation misalignment.

A Remole
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Conventional fixation disparity was compared with the corresponding foveal fixation misalignment measured by a recently developed method based on the effect of retinal eccentricity on the width of the border enhancement band. Unlike procedures using binocular nonius alignment, the method is not subject to adaptive changes in perceived direction. Forced convergence and divergence stimulation served as the independent variable. It was found that conventional fixation disparity represents only a small, constant fraction of the misalignment through the greater portion of the vergence range. However, when the misalignment is restricted to a small, central portion of the foveola, this relation changes drastically, and the fixation disparity can then be much larger than the fixation misalignment. During perfect fixation alignment of the foveal centers, there is always a significant amount of fixation disparity present. It is suggested that the large differences between fixation disparity and fixation misalignment are due to a fundamental, perceptual mechanism that is always at work during binocular vision, changing the relation between retinal location and perceived visual direction.

Explore related subjects

Convergence, OcularFixation, OcularHumansVision, OcularVisual Field TestsVisual PerceptionJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A Remole. 1985. Fixation disparity vs. binocular fixation misalignment.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-198501000-00003

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2004

Vergence deficits in pontine lesions.

Eye movements were recorded with the search coil system in two patients to determine whether lesions of the pontine nuclei selectively impair vergence to ramp targets (slow vergence) or step targets (fast vergence). Whereas conjugate saccades were not different from healthy control subjects, conjugate smooth pursuit eye movements had a reduced gain in horizontal and vertical directions. Slow convergence and divergence were impaired, whereas fast vergence did not differ from that of control subjects. Pontine nuclei appear to be involved in the slow vergence control.

Convergence, Ocular↗
PubMed2004

Ocular torsion: rotations around the "WHY" axis.

BACKGROUND: Traditional teaching holds that there is a partial compensatory countertorsion after head tilt because the intorters in the eye on the side of the head tilt and the extorters in the contralateral eye are stimulated. This teaching is inconsistent with a number of clinical observations. METHODS: Review of existing literature, reanalysis of data from the investigator's previous experiments, and inductive and deductive reasoning were used to reconcile inconsistencies and present a theory on why torsional movements occur. RESULTS: The inconsistencies can be reconciled if one considers that during the dynamic phase of head tilt, there is an alternating series of intorsional and extorsional movements of both eyes. Each eye has slow dynamic compensatory counterrolling phases that serve as torsional "doll's-head" movements to stabilize the image during head tilt. This counterrolling is partially eliminated by a series of anticompensatory torsional saccades in the direction of head tilt, which is in contrast to traditional teaching. CONCLUSION: Dynamic compensatory counterrolling occurs during head tilt. It is largely eliminated by anticompensatory torsional saccades in the opposite direction so that by the end of head tilt only minimal static countertorsion remains. The dynamic compensatory counterrolling motion is necessary to minimize peripheral visual movement during head tilt. The elimination of most of the counterrolling by the end of head tilt is necessary to preserve convergence and stereopsis.

Convergence, Ocular↗
PubMed2004

Attenuation of perceived motion smear during vergence and pursuit tracking.

When the eyes move, the images of stationary objects sweep across the retina. Despite this motion of the retinal image and the substantial integration of visual signals across time, physically stationary objects typically do not appear to be smeared during eye movements. Previous studies indicated that the extent of perceived motion smear is smaller when a stationary target is presented during pursuit or saccadic eye movements than when comparable motion of the retinal image occurs during steady fixation. In this study, we compared the extent of perceived motion smear for a stationary target during smooth pursuit and vergence eye movements with that for a physically moving target during fixation. For a target duration of 100 ms or longer, perceived motion smear is substantially less when the motion of the retinal image results from vergence or pursuit eye movements than when it results from the motion of a target during fixation. The reduced extent of perceived motion smear during eye movements compared to fixation cannot be accounted for by different spatio-temporal interactions between visual targets or by unequal attention to the moving test spot under these two types of conditions. We attribute the highly similar attenuation of perceived smear during vergence and pursuit to a comparable action of the extra-retinal signals for disjunctive and conjugate eye movements.

Convergence, Ocular↗