Department of Ophthalmology, Program in Neuroscience, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143, USA; email:
Annu Rev Vis Sci. 2021 Sep 15;7:155-179. doi: 10.1146/annurev-vision-100119-125406. Epub 2021 May 12.
Patients with homonymous hemianopia sometimes show preservation of the central visual fields, ranging up to 10°. This phenomenon, known as macular sparing, has sparked perpetual controversy. Two main theories have been offered to explain it. The first theory proposes a dual representation of the macula in each hemisphere. After loss of one occipital lobe, the back-up representation in the remaining occipital lobe is postulated to sustain ipsilateral central vision in the blind hemifield. This theory is supported by studies showing that some midline retinal ganglion cells project to the wrong hemisphere, presumably driving neurons in striate cortex that have ipsilateral receptive fields. However, more recent electrophysiological recordings and neuroimaging studies have cast doubt on this theory by showing only a minuscule ipsilateral field representation in early visual cortical areas. The second theory holds that macular sparing arises because the occipital pole, where the macula is represented, remains perfused after occlusion of the posterior cerebral artery because it receives collateral flow from the middle cerebral artery. An objection to this theory is that it cannot account for reports of macular sparing in patients after loss of an entire occipital lobe. On close scrutiny, such reports turn out to be erroneous, arising from inadequate control of fixation during visual field testing. Patients seem able to detect test stimuli on their blind side within the macula or along the vertical meridian because they make surveillance saccades. A purported treatment for hemianopia, called vision restoration therapy, is based on this error. The dual perfusion theory is supported by anatomical studies showing that the middle cerebral artery perfuses the occipital pole in many individuals.In patients with hemianopia from stroke, neuroimaging shows preservation of the occipital pole when macular sparing is present. The frontier dividing the infarcted territory of the posterior cerebral artery and the preserved territory of the middle cerebral artery is variable, but always falls within the representation of the macula, because the macula is so highly magnified. For physicians, macular sparing was an important neurological sign in acute hemianopia because it signified a posterior cerebral artery occlusion. Modern neuroimaging has supplanted the importance of that clinical sign but at the same time confirmed its validity. For patients, macular sparing remains important because it mitigates the impact of hemianopia and preserves the ability to read fluently.
同型半侧偏盲患者有时会保留中央视野,范围可达 10°。这种现象被称为黄斑回避,引发了持久的争议。有两种主要理论试图解释这一现象。第一种理论提出,每个半球的黄斑都有双重表现。在一个枕叶受损后,假定另一个枕叶的备份表现可以维持在盲侧视野中的同侧中央视力。这一理论得到了一些研究的支持,这些研究表明,一些中线视网膜神经节细胞投射到错误的半球,可能会驱动具有同侧感受野的纹状皮层中的神经元。然而,最近的电生理记录和神经影像学研究通过显示早期视觉皮层区域中只有极小的同侧视野表现,对这一理论提出了质疑。第二种理论认为,黄斑回避的产生是因为,在大脑后动脉闭塞后,代表黄斑的枕极仍然有灌注,因为它接受来自大脑中动脉的侧支血流。对这一理论的反对意见是,它无法解释整个枕叶受损后黄斑回避的患者报告。仔细审查后发现,这些报告实际上是错误的,是由于在视野测试中注视控制不当引起的。患者似乎能够在盲侧的黄斑或垂直中线上检测到测试刺激,因为他们会进行监视扫视。一种所谓的治疗偏盲的方法,即视力恢复疗法,就是基于这个错误。双重灌注理论得到了解剖学研究的支持,这些研究表明,大脑中动脉在许多个体中灌注枕极。在由中风引起的偏盲患者中,神经影像学显示在存在黄斑回避时,枕极得以保留。分隔大脑后动脉梗死区和大脑中动脉保留区的边界是可变的,但总是落在黄斑的代表区域内,因为黄斑的放大率很高。对于医生来说,黄斑回避是急性偏盲的一个重要神经学标志,因为它表明大脑后动脉闭塞。现代神经影像学已经取代了该临床标志的重要性,但同时也证实了其有效性。对于患者来说,黄斑回避仍然很重要,因为它减轻了偏盲的影响,保持了流畅阅读的能力。