Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 11483177

Are corresponding points fixed?

Abstract

Several investigators have claimed that the retinal coordinates of corresponding points shift with vergence eye movements. Two kinds of shifts have been reported. First, global shifts that increase with retinal eccentricity; such shifts would cause a flattening of the horopter at all viewing distances and would facilitate fusion of flat surfaces. Second, local shifts that are centered on the fovea; such shifts would cause a dimple in the horopter near fixation and would facilitate fusion of points fixated at extreme viewing distances. Nearly all of the empirical evidence supporting shifts of corresponding points comes from horopter measurements and from comparisons of subjective and objective fixation disparity. In both cases, the experimenter must infer the retinal coordinates of corresponding points from external measurements. We describe four factors that could affect this inference: (1) changes in the projection from object to image points that accompany eye rotation and accommodation, (2) fixation errors during the experimental measurements, (3) non-uniform retinal stretching, and (4) changes in the perceived direction of a monocular point when presented adjacent to a binocular point. We conducted two experiments that eliminated or compensated for these potential errors. In the first experiment, observers aligned dichoptic test lines using an apparatus and procedure that eliminated all but the third error. In the second experiment, observers judged the alignment of dichoptic afterimages, and this technique eliminates all the errors. The results from both experiments show that the retinal coordinates of corresponding points do not change with vergence eye movements. We conclude that corresponding points are in fixed retinal positions for observers with normal retinal correspondence.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J M Hillis, M S Banks. 2001. Are corresponding points fixed?. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0042-6989(01)00137-7

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

An evaluation of the lag of accommodation using photorefraction.

OBJECTIVE: The lag of accommodation which occurs in most human subjects during reading has been proposed to explain the association between reading and myopia. However, the measured lags are variable among different published studies and current knowledge on its magnitude rests largely on measurements with the Canon R-1 autorefractor. Therefore, we have measured it with another technique, eccentric infrared photorefraction (the PowerRefractor), and studied how it can be modified. METHODS: Particular care was taken to ensure correct calibration of the instrument. Ten young adult subjects were refracted both in the fixation axis of the right eye and from the midline between both eyes, while they read text both monocularly and binocularly at 1.5, 2, 3, 4 and 5 D distance ("group 1"). A second group of 10 subjects ("group 2"), measured from the midline between both eyes, was studied to analyze the effects of binocular vs monocular vision, addition of +1 or +2 D lenses, and of letter size. Spherical equivalents (SE) were analyzed in all cases. RESULTS: The lag of accommodation was variable among subjects (standard deviations among groups and viewing distances ranging from 0.18 to 1.07 D) but was significant when the measurements were done in the fixation axis (0.35 D at 3 D target distance to 0.60 D at 5 D with binocular vision; p<0.01 or better all cases). Refracting from the midline between both eyes tended to underestimate the lag of accommodation although this was significant only at 5 D (ANOVA: p<0.0001, post hoc t-test: p<0.05). There was a small improvement in accommodation precision with binocular compared to monocular viewing but significance was reached only for the 5 D reading target (group 1--lags for a 3/4/5 D target: 0.35 vs 0.41 D/0.48 vs 0.47 D/0.60 vs 0.66 D, ANOVA: p<0.0001, post hoc t-test: p<0.05; group 2--0.29 vs 0.12 D, 0.33 vs 0.16 D, 0.23 vs -0.31 D, ANOVA: p<0.0001, post hoc t-test: p<0.05). Adjusting the letter height for constant angular subtense (0.2 deg) induced scarcely more accommodation than keeping letter size constantly at 3.5 mm (ANOVA: p<0.0001, post hoc t-test: n.s.). Positive trial lenses reduced the lag of accommodation under monocular viewing conditions and even reversed it with binocular vision. CONCLUSIONS: After consideration of possible sources of measurement error, the lag of accommodation measured with photorefraction at 3 D (0.41 D SE monocular and 0.35 D SE binocular) was in the range of published values from the Canon R-1 autorefractor. With the measured lag, simulations of the retinal images for a diffraction limited eye suggest surprisingly poor letter contrast on the retina.

Accommodation, Ocular↗

The effects of wearing corrective lenses for presbyopia on distance vision.

The possibility of patient behaviour concerning the wearing of reading spectacles influencing the magnitude and rate of change in distance vision has been hypothesised but not fully examined. This study examined the changes in distance vision over time of 674 presbyopic patients between the ages of 44 and 69 who came to their eye professional needing reading spectacles. Prior to this study, these patients had never worn spectacles. The majority of patients opted for full-eye (complete) reading spectacles and 150 patients selected bifocals. It was found that patients wearing complete reading spectacles eventually adapted to wearing their reading spectacles for intermediate or distance work. Through X2, it was found that there were significant differences in the reduction of distance visual acuity between groups based on the amount of time spent wearing reading spectacles for intermediate or distance work. The greater the number of hours spent wearing reading spectacles and viewing beyond their focal point, the greater the change in distance visual acuity. It also appeared to affect the degree of change in their prescription. Age was not significantly related.

Accommodation, Ocular↗

Cardinal points and image-object magnification with an accommodative lens implant (1 CU).

UNLABELLED: A simple mathematical method for the determination of the cardinal points of pseudophakic eyes after implantation of an accommodative intraocular lens [posterior chamber intraocular lenses (PCIOL)] is presented. The purpose of this study was to explore the changes during pseudophakic accommodation (PAC) in (1). the positions of the cardinal points, (2). the distance of the object conjugate with the retina, and (3). the image-object magnification. These theoretical accommodation data are compared with clinical measurements. METHODS AND PATIENTS: Using biometrical measurements of the axial length, equivalent power of the cornea and the anterior chamber depth (ACD) in the non-accommodated state we used linear geometric optics for determination of the cardinal points and object distance as well as lateral magnification (the ratio of image to object size). With the measurement of ACD decrease (following pharmacological stimulation of the ciliary muscle with 2% pilocarpine eye drops) we determined the changes of the cardinal points and magnification to assess PAC amplitude from the shortening of the object distance. Calculated values of PAC amplitude were compared with the respective measured values derived from amplitude measures by accommodometer, defocusing and streak retinoscopy. We analysed the results of a prospective study on 35 eyes of 28 patients after cataract surgery (target refraction: -0.2 D) and accommodative PCIOL implantation (1 CU, Human Optics AG, Erlangen, Germany) 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: After pilocarpine eye drops, ACD (mean +/- S.D., range; median) decreased by 0.88 +/- 0.48 mm (0.51-1.91; 0.66). Distance of the in-focus object decreased from the non-accommodated state (-5.62 +/- 1.83 m, -25 to -1.1; -4.83 m) to the accommodated state (ACD decrease) (-0.81 +/- 0.21, -2.11 to -0.65; -0.79 m). For a theoretical ACD decrease of 1.0 mm (the intrinsic limitation of the PCIOL design) it was -0.59 +/- 0.28, -1.31 to -0.51; -0.63 m and resulted in an objective accommodative response of 1.49 +/- 0.16, 1.21-1.81; 1.46 D, depending on the actual geometry of the individual eye. On average, magnification as induced by PAC in contrast to that induced by adequate spectacle addition differed by only about 1%. Accommodation measured with defocusing and the accommodometer correlated significantly with the theoretical value based on IOLMaster measurement of ACD decrease (r = 0.752, p = 0.005 and r = 0.676, p = 0.02). Likewise, accommodation measured with streak retinoscopy correlated weakly with the theoretical value based on IOLMaster ACD decrease (r = 0.465, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Using geometrical optics, PAC can be derived from the biometric data of the eye and the measured ACD decrease. This approach may be an additional indicator for the accommodative response in pseudophakic patients and may allow a subdivision of the measured accommodation into true PAC and pseudoaccommodation, for example, because of increased depth of focus induced by pupillary constriction.

Accommodation, Ocular↗