Purpose/Aim: We aimed to investigate the effect of monocular blur on the binocular visual field. Materials and Methods: A total of 13 healthy young volunteers participated in this study. The mean subjective refractive...Purpose/Aim: We aimed to investigate the effect of monocular blur on the binocular visual field. Materials and Methods: A total of 13 healthy young volunteers participated in this study. The mean subjective refractive error of the dominant eye (DE) was -3.33 ± 1.65D, and the non-dominant eye (NDE) was -3.15 ± 2.84D. The DE was determined by using the hole-in-the-card test. The visual field was examined by the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer using the 30-2 SITA Standard program. The visual field was measured while wearing soft contact lens under three conditions;① both eyes: near vision correction;② DE: near vision correction +3.00D added, NDE: near vision correction;and ③ DE: near vision correction, NDE: near vision correction +3.00D added. The foveal threshold, mean deviation (MD), and pattern standard deviation (PSD) values were investigated. Results: The foveal threshold value (dB) at ①, ②, and ③ was 41.2, 37.8, and 38.1, respectively. The values at ② and ③ were both significantly lower than that at ① (p Conclusion: These results suggest that monocular blur reduced the sensitivity within the binocular visual field.展开更多
Purpose: We compared the thickness of circumpapillary retinal nerve fiver layer (cpRNFL) and macular ganglion cell layer with inner plexiform layer (GCL + IPL) using Cirrus HD-OCT (Ver.6.0: Carl Zeiss). Materials and ...Purpose: We compared the thickness of circumpapillary retinal nerve fiver layer (cpRNFL) and macular ganglion cell layer with inner plexiform layer (GCL + IPL) using Cirrus HD-OCT (Ver.6.0: Carl Zeiss). Materials and Methods: This study included 12 eyes of normal controls, 10 eyes of preperimetric glaucoma (PPG) with loss of RNFL either in superior or in inferior hemisphere without visual field defects, and 22 eyes of glaucoma eyes with visual field defects restricted to upper hemifield (UHFD: early 10 eyes, severe 12 eyes). The cpRNFL thickness analyzed from disk center by dividing into 12 sectors. The GCL + IPL thickness analyzed from central fovea by dividing into six sectors. Both compared between normal eye group and other 3 groups using the average value of each sectors. Result: The cpRNFL and the GCL + IPL thickness were obviously thin as compared with normal eyes. Conclusion: Even if it is in the state where abnormalities are not detected using the Humphrey field Analyzer, it is suggested that the early structural change of glaucoma has already arisen.展开更多
Background/Aims: We investigated the relationship between ocular dominance and accommodation on the pupils of the dominant eye and the non-dominant eye under binocular open viewing conditions. Methods: Seventeen healt...Background/Aims: We investigated the relationship between ocular dominance and accommodation on the pupils of the dominant eye and the non-dominant eye under binocular open viewing conditions. Methods: Seventeen healthy young volunteers participated in this study. The dominant eye was determined using the hole-in-the-card test. The objective refraction and pupil diameter were measured under binocular open viewing and monocular single viewing conditions using a binocular open auto-refractor, the WAM-5500 (SHIGIYA MACHINERY WORKS LTD., Hiroshima, Japan). The accommodative response was calculated using the objective refraction, and the rate of miosis was calculated using the pupil diameter. These values were then compared between the dominant and the non-dominant eyes. Results: Under binocular open viewing conditions, the accommodative response in the dominant eye was greater than in the non-dominant eye (p = 0.001). In contrast, under monocular single viewing conditions, there were no differences in the accommodative response between the dominant and non-dominant eyes. In both binocular open viewing and monocular single viewing conditions, there were no differences in the miosis ratio between the dominant and non-dominant eyes. Conclusion: These results suggest that the accommodative response under binocular open viewing conditions is influenced by ocular dominance.展开更多
文摘Purpose/Aim: We aimed to investigate the effect of monocular blur on the binocular visual field. Materials and Methods: A total of 13 healthy young volunteers participated in this study. The mean subjective refractive error of the dominant eye (DE) was -3.33 ± 1.65D, and the non-dominant eye (NDE) was -3.15 ± 2.84D. The DE was determined by using the hole-in-the-card test. The visual field was examined by the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer using the 30-2 SITA Standard program. The visual field was measured while wearing soft contact lens under three conditions;① both eyes: near vision correction;② DE: near vision correction +3.00D added, NDE: near vision correction;and ③ DE: near vision correction, NDE: near vision correction +3.00D added. The foveal threshold, mean deviation (MD), and pattern standard deviation (PSD) values were investigated. Results: The foveal threshold value (dB) at ①, ②, and ③ was 41.2, 37.8, and 38.1, respectively. The values at ② and ③ were both significantly lower than that at ① (p Conclusion: These results suggest that monocular blur reduced the sensitivity within the binocular visual field.
文摘Purpose: We compared the thickness of circumpapillary retinal nerve fiver layer (cpRNFL) and macular ganglion cell layer with inner plexiform layer (GCL + IPL) using Cirrus HD-OCT (Ver.6.0: Carl Zeiss). Materials and Methods: This study included 12 eyes of normal controls, 10 eyes of preperimetric glaucoma (PPG) with loss of RNFL either in superior or in inferior hemisphere without visual field defects, and 22 eyes of glaucoma eyes with visual field defects restricted to upper hemifield (UHFD: early 10 eyes, severe 12 eyes). The cpRNFL thickness analyzed from disk center by dividing into 12 sectors. The GCL + IPL thickness analyzed from central fovea by dividing into six sectors. Both compared between normal eye group and other 3 groups using the average value of each sectors. Result: The cpRNFL and the GCL + IPL thickness were obviously thin as compared with normal eyes. Conclusion: Even if it is in the state where abnormalities are not detected using the Humphrey field Analyzer, it is suggested that the early structural change of glaucoma has already arisen.
文摘Background/Aims: We investigated the relationship between ocular dominance and accommodation on the pupils of the dominant eye and the non-dominant eye under binocular open viewing conditions. Methods: Seventeen healthy young volunteers participated in this study. The dominant eye was determined using the hole-in-the-card test. The objective refraction and pupil diameter were measured under binocular open viewing and monocular single viewing conditions using a binocular open auto-refractor, the WAM-5500 (SHIGIYA MACHINERY WORKS LTD., Hiroshima, Japan). The accommodative response was calculated using the objective refraction, and the rate of miosis was calculated using the pupil diameter. These values were then compared between the dominant and the non-dominant eyes. Results: Under binocular open viewing conditions, the accommodative response in the dominant eye was greater than in the non-dominant eye (p = 0.001). In contrast, under monocular single viewing conditions, there were no differences in the accommodative response between the dominant and non-dominant eyes. In both binocular open viewing and monocular single viewing conditions, there were no differences in the miosis ratio between the dominant and non-dominant eyes. Conclusion: These results suggest that the accommodative response under binocular open viewing conditions is influenced by ocular dominance.
