PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 8506631

Motion sensitivity and spatial undersampling in amblyopia.

Abstract

The nature of the visual deficit in human amblyopia has been keenly sought over the last decade. Some confusion has arisen as to whether the motion-sensitive mechanisms known to exist in normal vision are selectively affected in humans with amblyopia. To address this issue we compare contrast thresholds for detection and direction discrimination of drifting sine-wave gratings in a group of humans with amblyopia. The results suggest that over the vast majority of the spatio-temporal range, direction of motion can be discriminated at detection threshold. Over a narrow part of the visible range there is a differential loss of sensitivity for direction discrimination over that of simple detection. However such an effect also occurs for normal vision under spatially scaled conditions and it seems likely that it is mediated by non-motion sensitive mechanisms. We show that one possible cause of this loss of direction discrimination, namely spatial undersampling within the central region of the amblyopic visual field, is not a viable explanation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R F Hess, S J Anderson. 1993. Motion sensitivity and spatial undersampling in amblyopia.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(93)90071-4

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Genome-Wide and Rare Variant Association Studies of Amblyopia in Admixed American and African Ancestry Groups.

OBJECTIVE: To identify genetic variants associated with amblyopia in African (AFR) and Admixed American (AMR) ancestry groups, expanding on previous studies conducted in European ancestry. DESIGN: Retrospective ancestry-stratified genome-wide association study (GWAS) and gene-level rare variant association study (RVAS). PARTICIPANTS: Participants in the All of Us Research Program from AFR and AMR ancestry groups who had whole-genome sequencing available. Cases and controls were distinguished based on the presence of International Classification of Diseases 9/10/SNOMED diagnosis codes for amblyopia in electronic health records. This yielded ancestry-stratified subsets of 269 cases and 71 585 controls of AMR ancestry and 366 cases and 79 460 controls of AFR ancestry. METHODS: Stratified logistic regression models were adjusted for age, biological sex, and the top 10 principal components of genomic ancestry. GWAS was limited to common variants (minor allele frequency &#x2265;1%), and RVAS was limited to rare variants with coding sequence-altering effects (minor allele frequency >1%, exonic only, excluding synonymous variants) aggregated at the gene level using the SKAT algorithm. Downstream analyses of the significant variants were performed using KEGG and GO pathway analysis and STRING database queries for protein-protein interactions and gene-gene interactions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Single-nucleotide polymorphisms were determined to have genome-wide significance if P < 5e-8 in the GWAS, and genes were determined to have significant association with amblyopia in the RVAS if P < 8.0 &#xd7; 10-4. RESULTS: In the AMR GWAS, 245 unique single-nucleotide polymorphisms mapping to 97 distinct loci were identified, notably within neurodevelopmental and axonal guidance genes, including ROBO1, SEMA4B, PTPRD, NRXN1, and CAMK2D. The AFR GWAS identified 11 significant variants corresponding to 6 loci mapping primarily to long noncoding RNAs and pseudogenes. The AMR RVAS identified 15 genes, including axonal transport genes (KIF1B and KIF7) and growth factor signaling genes (EGF, ERBIN, and AKAP17A). The AFR RVAS identified a single gene, DLG2, which encodes the postsynaptic protein PSD-93, which promotes the closure of the sensitive period of neuroplasticity for vision in early childhood. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic risk architectures for amblyopia differ across ancestries but fundamentally converge on neurodevelopmental signaling, cortical synapse assembly, and sensitive period plasticity rather than ocular structural dynamics. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Amblyopia

Uncalibrated distortions vs undersampling.

In a recent paper of ours [Hess & Field (1993). Vision Research, 33, 2663-2670], we claim that there was a predictable relationship between position errors and contrast errors for an undersampled system. In this paper we re-state our main points. We feel that the response to that paper by Levi and Klein in the accompanying article does not require us to produce changes in our original position. We believe that the data support the notion that the principal causes of the positional errors in the normal periphery and the in the amblyopic visual system are due to uncalibrated distortions in the local signs of visual neurons. We believe that undersampling plays a major role in producing positional errors only in the far periphery at, or very near, the acuity limit. We maintain that our initial studies provide strong evidence that undersampling is insufficient as an explanation for the positional errors in the periphery of normals (Hess & Field, 1993) or the central field of amblyopes [Hess & Field (1994). Vision Research, 34, 3397-3406.

Amblyopia

Amblyopic quasi-blindness for image structure.

Human amblyopes display reduced contrast sensitivities, suffer from perceptual distortion, and their letter acuities are worse than is predicted from grating visibility. We sought the origin of these dysfunctions by measuring normal and amblyopic sensitivities to various forms of well-defined image distortion, namely band-limited phase quantization, phase quantization with additional amplitude modulation, and grey-scale modification. Our results prove the existence of an amblyopic quasi-blindness to image structure, that cannot be explained in terms of contrast detection. We discuss these findings within the computational scheme of image decomposition into local amplitude and local phase values. they are consistent with the assumption of amblyopic eyes beings impaired in processing local phase but having the local amplitude (or "energy", possibly at reduced gain) at their disposal. Phrased in physiological terms, we propose a scheme of complex-cells-only vision in amblyopia. We also provide a demonstration of how amblyopic eyes may see the test stimuli and natural images by generating local amplitude and phase representations at limited phase resolution.

Amblyopia