García-Pérez Miguel A, Peli Eli
Departamento de Metodología, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
The Schepens Eye Research Institute, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Iperception. 2019 Apr 29;10(2):2041669519841397. doi: 10.1177/2041669519841397. eCollection 2019 Mar-Apr.
Classical sighting or sensory tests are used in clinical practice to identify the dominant eye. Several psychophysical tests were recently proposed to quantify the magnitude of dominance but whether their results agree was never investigated. We addressed this question for the two most common psychophysical tests: The , which measures the cyclopean appearance of dichoptically presented sinusoids of different phase, and the , which measures interocular differences in motion perception when signal and noise stimuli are presented dichoptically. We also checked for agreement with three classical tests (Worth 4-dot, Randot suppression, and Bagolini lenses). Psychophysical tests were administered in their conventional form and also using more dependable psychophysical methods. The results showed weak correlations between psychophysical measures of strength of dominance with inconsistent identification of the dominant eye across tests: Agreement on left-eye dominance, right-eye dominance, or nondominance by both tests occurred only for 11 of 40 observers (27.5%); the remaining 29 observers were classified differently by each test, including 14 cases (35%) of opposite classification (left-eye dominance by one test and right-eye dominance by the other). Classical tests also yielded conflicting results that did not agree well with classification based on psychophysical tests. The results are discussed in the context of determination of ocular dominance for clinical decisions.
在临床实践中，经典的视力或感官测试用于确定优势眼。最近有人提出了几种心理物理学测试来量化优势程度，但从未研究过它们的结果是否一致。我们针对两种最常见的心理物理学测试解决了这个问题：一种是测量不同相位的双眼视正弦波的独眼外观的测试，另一种是在双眼分别呈现信号和噪声刺激时测量运动感知中的双眼差异的测试。我们还检查了与三种经典测试（沃思四点测试、兰多抑制测试和巴戈利尼镜片测试）的一致性。心理物理学测试以常规形式进行，也使用了更可靠的心理物理学方法。结果表明，优势强度的心理物理学测量之间的相关性较弱，不同测试对优势眼的识别不一致：两种测试在左眼优势、右眼优势或无优势方面达成一致的情况仅在40名观察者中的11名（27.5%）中出现；其余29名观察者在每种测试中的分类不同，包括14例（35%）相反分类的情况（一种测试为左眼优势，另一种测试为右眼优势）。经典测试也产生了相互矛盾的结果，与基于心理物理学测试的分类不太一致。在为临床决策确定眼优势的背景下讨论了这些结果。
