Merve Beyza YILDIZ, Yücel ÖZTÜRK, Rüveyde BOLAÇ, Sevcan YILDIZ, Elvin YILDIZ

Oküler Dominans ve Lateralite ile Akomodasyon Arasındaki İlişkinin Değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Monovizyon presbiyopik tedavi uygulamalarında oküler dominansın klinik önemi artmıştır. Dominant ve dominant olmayan gözde akomodatif fonksiyonu araştıran az sayıda çalışmada çelişkili sonuçlar bildirilmiştir. Çalışmamızda oküler dominans ve lateralitenin akomodasyon üzerindeki etkisini değerlendirmek amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya otuz beş sağlıklı, genç izometropik katılımcı dahil edildi. Oküler dominans, kart içinde delik testi kullanılarak belirlendi. Monoküler görüş koşulları altında Hartmann- Shack aberometresi kullanılarak, 0,5 diyoptrilik artışlarla 0,5 ila 5 diyoptri arasında artan akomodatif uyarana verilen akomodatif yanıtlar ölçüldü. Bulgular: Katılımcıların yaş ortalaması 31,49 ± 4,22 (24-38) idi. Yirmi ikisi (%62,9) kadın, 13’ü (%37,1) erkekti. Yirmi yedi (%77,1) olguda sağ göz, 8 olguda (%22,9) sol göz dominant idi. Dominant ve dominant olmayan gözler arasında kırma kusuru (sferik, silindirik ve sferik eşdeğer) açısından anlamlı bir fark yoktu (p>0,05). Dominant ve dominant olmayan gözler arasında 0,5 ila 5 diyoptrilik akomodatif uyarana verilen akomodatif yanıtlarda anlamlı fark yoktu (p>0,05). Ayrıca, sağ ve sol gözlerin akomodatif yanıtları benzerdi (p>0,05). Sonuç: Çalışmamızda sağlıklı genç izometropik katılımcıların dominant ve dominant olmayan gözlerinin farklı akomodatif uyaranlara akomodatif yanıtları benzer bulundu. Sağ ve sol göz arasında da fark yoktu. Akomodasyonda oküler dominans ve lateralitenin rolünü anlamak için daha fazla çalışmaya ihtiyaç vardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Oküler dominans, Lateralite, Akomodasyon, İnteroküler simetri

Evaluation of the Relationship Between Ocular Dominance and Laterality and Accommodation

Aim: The clinical importance of ocular dominance has increased in monovision presbyopic therapy. There are few studies which have investigated accommodative function in the dominant and nondominant eye. Inconsistent results were reported in these studies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of ocular dominance and laterality on accommodation. Material and Methods: Thirty-five healthy, young isometropic participants were enrolled in this study. Ocular dominance was determined using the hole-in-the-card test. Accommodative responses to accommodative stimulus ranging from 0.5 to 5 diopters in increments of 0.5 diopter were measured using a Hartmann-Shack aberrometer under monocular viewing conditions. Results: The mean age of the participants was 31.49 ± 4.22 (range, 24-38) years. Twenty-two (62.9%) were female and 13 (37.1%) were male. The right eye was dominant in 27 (77.1%) subjects and the left eye was dominant in eight (22.9%). There was no significant difference in refractive error (spherical, cylindrical, and spherical equivalent) between the dominant and nondominant eyes (p>0,05). There were no significant differences in the accommodative response to the accommodative stimulus of 0.5 to 5 diopters between the dominant and nondominant eyes (p>0.05). In addition, the accommodative responses of the right and left eyes were similar (p>0.05). Conclusion: The accommodative responses of the dominant and non-dominant eyes of healthy isometropic participants were similar under monocular viewing conditions. There was also no difference between the right and left eyes. Further studies are needed to understand the role of ocular dominance and laterality in accommodation.

Keywords:

Ocular dominance, laterality, accommodation, interocular symmetry,

PDF

___

1. Ooi TL, He ZJ. Sensory eye dominance: Relationship between eye and brain. Eye Brain. 2020 Jan 20;12:25-31.
2. Mapp AP, Ono H, Barbeito R. What does the dominant eye dominate? A brief and somewhat contentious review. Percept Psychophys. 2003;65:310–317
3. Gupta N, Naroo SA, Wolffsohn JS. Visual comparison of multifocal contact lens to monovision. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86:E98-105.
4. Zhang F, Sugar A, Jacobsen G, Collins M. Visual function and spectacle independence after cataract surgery: bilateral diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses versus monovision pseudophakia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37:853-858.
5. Evans BJ. Monovision: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2007;27:417-439.
6. Kılınç Hekimsoy H. Söğüt FE. Şekeroğlu MA. Dominant ve Dominant Olmayan Gözlerde Retina Tabakalarının Optik Koherans Tomografi Segmentasyon Analizi ile Değerlendirilmesi. MN Oftalmoloji. 2021;28(4):231-234
7. Choi JA, Kim JS, Jeong HJ, Lee JA, Park CK. Ocular dominance is associated with the ganglion cell-ınner plexiform layer thickness profile in the macula. PLoS One. 2016 Feb 26;11(2):e0150035.
8. Yang Z, Lan W, Liu W, Chen X, Nie H, Yu M, et al. Association of ocular dominance and myopia development: a 2-year longitudinal study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:4779–4783.
9. Linke SJ, Baviera J, Munzer G, Steinberg J, Richard G, Katz T. Association between ocular dominance and spherical/astigmatic anisometropia, age, and sex: analysis of 10,264 myopic individuals. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:9166–9173
10. Linke SJ, Baviera J, Richard G, Katz T. Association between ocular dominance and spherical/astigmatic anisometropia, age, and sex: analysis of 1274 hyperopic individuals. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:5362–5369
11. Zhou D, Ni N, Ni A, Chen Q, Hu DN, Zhou J. Association of visual acuity with ocular dominance in 2045 myopic patients. Curr Eye Res. 2017 Aug;42(8):1155-1159.
12. Burtis DB, Heilman KM, Mo J, Wang C, Lewis GF, Davilla MI, et al. The effects of constrained left versus right monocular viewing on the autonomic nervous system. Biol Psychol. 2014 Jul;100:79-85.
13. Rombouts SA, Barkhof F, Sprenger M, Valk J, Scheltens P. The functional basis of ocular dominance: functional MRI (fMRI) findings. Neurosci Lett. 1996; 221:1–4.
14. Jensen BH, Hougaard A, Amin FM, Larsson HB, Ashina M. Structural asymmetry of cortical visual areas is related to ocular dominance. Neuroreport. 2015:1071-6.
15. Campbell FW & Westheimer G. Dynamics of accommodation responses of the human eye. J Physiol 1960; 151:285–295.
16. McDougal DH, Gamlin PD. Autonomic control of the eye. Compr Physiol. 2015 Jan;5(1):439-73.
17. Seijas O, Gomez de Liano P, Gomez de Liano R, Roberts CJ, Piedrahita E, Diaz E. Ocular dominance diagnosis and its influence in monovision. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:209-216.
18. Ibi K. Characteristics of dynamic accommodation responses: comparison between the dominant and non-dominant eyes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1997; 17:44–54
19. Momeni-Moghaddam H, McAlinden C, Azimi A, Sobhani M, Skiadaresi E. Comparing accommodative function between the dominant and non-dominant eye. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014; 252: 509–514.
20. Vincent SJ, Collins MJ, Read SA, Ghosh A, Chen C, Lam A, et al. The short-term accommodation response to aniso-accommodative stimuli in isometropia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2015 Sep;35(5):552-61.
21. Heron G & Winn B. Binocular accommodation reaction and response times for normal observers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1989; 9: 176–183.
22. Fisher SK, Ciuffreda KJ, Hammer S. Interocular equality of tonic accommodation and consensuality of accommodative hysteresis. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1987; 7: 17–20.23.
23. Hachinski VC, Oppenheimer SM, Wilson JX, Guiraudon C, Cechetto DF. Asymmetry of sympathetic consequences of experimental stroke. Arch Neurol. 1992 Jul;49(7):697-702.
24. Eser I, Durrie DS, Schwendeman F, Stahl JE. Association between ocular dominance and refraction. J Refract Surg. 2008;24:685–689.
25. Eser İ. The Incidence of Eye Dominance in Turkey. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2008;38:60-63.