Documenta Ophthalmologica

, Volume 71, Issue 1, pp 1–18 | Cite as

Suppression scotomas in primary microstrabismus — a perimetric artefact

  • Ekkehard Mehdorn
Article

Abstract

Static perimetry with stereoscopic targets, “stereo-perimetry”, was performed on eight patients with primary microstrabismus to find out how strabismic subjects see under natural conditions, i.e. how they ordinarily make use of their squinting eye. In all cases, suppression scotomas were detectable using dissociating perimetric techniques. By means of stereoperimetry, however, the scotomas were not detectable. On the contrary, stereo-acuity was always best in the center of the suppression scotomas. This result indicates that suppression scotomas of the microstrabismic subjects examined here represented perimetric artefacts. In microstrabismic pateints, the cooperation of the deviated eye in the central visual field is probably much better than has previously been thought.

Key words

anomalous retinal correspondence binocular perimetry microstrabismus stereopsis suppression scotoma 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Asher H. Suppression theory of binocular vision. Br J Ophthalmol 1953; 37:37–49.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aulhorn E. Phasendifferenz-Haploskopie. Klin Mbl Augenheilk 1966; 148:540–44.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aulhorn E. Die gegenseitige Beeinflussung abbildungsgleicher Netzhautstellen bei normalem und gestörtem Binokularsehen. Doc Ophthalmol 1967; 23:26–61.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Awaya S, Nozaki H, Yoshikane M, Harada T, Sugita G. Studies on suppression scotomas in constant exotropia under binocular conditions and quantitative studies on the effect of the background upon fusional movement in intermittent exotropia and prism-induced heterophoria by using the Aulhorn phase difference haploscope. Acta Soc Ophthalmol Jap 1974; 78:456–68.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Awaya S, Nozaki H, Itoh T, Harada K. Studies of suppression in alternating constant exotropia and intermittent exotropia with reference to the effects of fusional background. In: Moore S, Mein J, Stockbridge L, eds. Orthoptics - past, present, future. New York: Stratton, 1976; 531–46.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bagolini B. Anomalous correspondence: definition and diagnostic methods. Doc Ophthalmol 1967; 23:346–86.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bagolini B. Sensorial anomalies in strabismus. Doc Ophthalmol 1976; 41:1–22.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bagolini B, Campos EC. Areale des Binokularsehens in der Kleinwinkelesotropie: Kampimetrische Bewertung mit modifizierter v. Graefe-Technik. Klin Mbl Augenheilk 1977; 170:536–41.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bagolini B, Capobianco NM. Small angle strabismus. In: Lyle K, Wybar K, Lee B, Bullock K, eds. Strabismus '69. London: Kimpton 1970; 155–59.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bagolini B, Campos EC, Chiesi C. The Irvine 4 diopter test for the diagnosis of suppression: a reappraisal. Binocular Vision 1985; 1:77–84.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Binder HF, Arndt CL. Binocularity in anomalous retinal correspondence. Acta Ophthalmol 1963; 41:653–58.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burian HM. Fusional movements in permanent strabismus. Arch Ophthalmol 1941; 26:626–50.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Campos EC. Binocular visual field examinations in patients with small-angle comitant esotropia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Suppl 1976; 15:156.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Campos EC. Binocular campimetry in concomitant esotropia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Suppl 1977; 16:162.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Campos EC, Chiesi C. Périmétrie binoculaire dans l'exotropie concomitante. Bull Mém Soc Franç d'Ophtalmol 1980; 92:301–06.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cynader M, Gardner J, Douglas R. Neural mechanisms underlying stereoscopic depth perception in cat visual cortex. In: Cool SJ, Smith EL, eds. Frontiers in visual science. Berlin: Springer, 1978: 373–86.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cynader M, Regan D. Neurons in cat visual cortex tuned to the direction of motion in depth: effect of positional disparity. Vision Res 1982; 22:957–82.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dannheim E. Statische Perimetrie im binokularen Sehakt. Orthoptik-Pleoptik 1973; 1:14–21.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Decker W. Campimetria of small inhibitional scotoma following cure of squint. In: Mein J, Bierlaagh JJM, Brummelkamp-Dons TEA, eds. Proceed 2nd Int Orthoptic Congr. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica 1972:109–11.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dubois-Poulsen A. Le champ visuel. Paris: Masson, 1952.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Du Tour M. Discussion d'une question d'optique, I, II, III. Mém Savants Etrang (Paris) 1760; 3:514–30. 1763; 4:499–511. 1768; 5:677–78.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Epstein DL, Tredici TJ. Microtopia (monofixation syndrome) in flying personnel. Am J Ophthalmol 1973; 76:832–41.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gobin MH. The limitation of suppression to one half of the visual field in the pathogenesis of strabismus. Brit Orthopt J 1968; 25:42–49.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Graefe A v. Über das Doppelsehen nach Schieloperationen und Incongruenz der Netzhäute. Albrecht v Graefes Arch Klin exp Ophthalmol 1854; 1: 82–120.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Graefe A. Motilitätsstörungen. In: Graefe-Saemisch's Handbuch der gesamten Augenheilkunde. 2nd ed, vol 8/1. Leipzig: Engelmann 1903; 119–23.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Haitz E. Das Zentralskotom bei der kongenitalen Schielamblyopie. Klin Mbl Augenheilk 1933; 91:828–29.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hamburger FA. Untersuchungen über die Sehweise Schielender. Albrecht v Graefes Arch klin exp Ophthalmol 1942; 144:718–85.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harms H. Ort und Wesen der Bildhemmung bei Schielenden. Albrecht v Graefes Arch klin exp Ophthalmol 1938; 138:149–210.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Heine L. Über das zentrale Skotom bei der kongenitalen Amblyopie. Klin Mbl Augenheilk 1905; 43:10–40.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Herzau V. Untersuchungen über das binokulare Gesichtsfeld Schielender. Doc Ophthalmol 1980; 49:221–84.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hochberg J. A theory of binocular cyclopean field: on the possibility of simulated stereopsis. Percept Mot Skills 1964; 19:685.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Inatomi A. Observations on the visual functions in strabismus. Report II. Observations on retinal suppression and correspondence. Acta Soc Ophthalmol Jap 1957; 61:1529–43.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Irvine SR. Amblyopia ex anopsia: observations on retinal inhibition, scotoma, projection, discrimination of light differences and visual acuity. Arch Ophthalmol 1950; 43:960–61.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Irvine SR. Measuring scotomas with the prism displacement test. Am J Ophthalmol 1966; 61:177–87.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jampolsky A. Characteristics of suppression in strabismus. Arch Ophthalmol 1955; 54:683–96.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Javal E. Manuel de strabisme. Paris: Masson 1896.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Keith-Lyle T, Wybar KC. Lyle and Jackson's practical orthoptics in the treatment of squint. 5th ed. London: Lewis & Co 1967.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lang J. Amblyopia of microropia. In: Lyle K, Wybar K, Lee B Bullock K, eds. Strabismus '69. London: Kimpton 1970:160–64.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lang J. Die Skotome im binokularen Gesichtsfeld bei hochgradiger Amblyopie und bei Mikrostrabismus. Klin Mbl Augenheilk 1978; 173:470–76.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Levelt WJM. On binocular rivalry. Proefschrift. Assen: Gorcum & Co 1965.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lyle TK Foley J. Subnormal binocular vision with special reference to peripheral fusion. Br J Ophthalmol 1955; 39:474–87.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mackensen G. Monoculare und binoculare stratische Perimetrie zur Untersuchung der Hemmungsvorgänge beim Schielen. Albrecht v Graefes Arch klin exp Ophthalmol 1959; 160:573–87.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Noorden GKv. Burian-von Noorden's binocular vision and ocular motility. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby 1980.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nozaki H. Studies on suppression scotomas in intermittent exotropia both in the dark (without fusional background) and under conditions of near normalcy (with fusional background) using the Aulhorn phase difference haploscope. Acta Soc Ophthalmol Jap 1975; 79:1442–51.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ogle KN. Researches in binocular vision. New York: Hafner 1964.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ohtsuki H. Studies on suppression scotoma. Part I. Suppression scotoma in esotropia with abnormal retinal correspondence. Folia Ophthalmol Jap 1977; 28:1674–81.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ohtsuki H. Studies on suppression scotoma. Part III. Suppression scotoma in microtropia. In: Schimizu K, ed. Ophthalmology - Proceed XXIII Int Congress Kyoto 1978. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica 1979.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Parks MM. The monofixation syndrome. Trans New Orleans Acad Ophthalmol. St. Louis: Mosby 1971: 121–53.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Poggio GF, Fischer B. Binocular interaction and depth sensitivity in striate and prestriate cortex of behaving rhesus monkey. J Neurophysiol 1977; 1392–1405.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pratt-Johnson JA, Macdonald SD. Binocular visual field in strabismus. Can J Ophthalmol 1976; 11:37–41.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pratt-Johnson JA, Wee HS. Suppression associated with exotropia. Can J Ophthalmol 1969; 4:136–44.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pratt-Johnson JA, Wee HS, Ellis S. Suppression associated with esotropia. Can J Ophthalmol 1967; 2:284–91.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ravalico G. Il campo visivo binoculare nello strabismo concomitante a piccolo angolo. Bull Ocul 1971; 50:259–91.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Regan D, Beverly K, Cynader M. Stereoscopic depth channels for position and for motion. In: Cool SJ, Smith EL, eds. Frontiers in visual science. Berlin: Springer, 1978:351–72.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Regan D, Beverly K, Cynader M. Stereoscopic subsystems for position in depth and for motion in depth. Proc R Soc Lond B 1979; 204:485–501.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Remky H. Über den Umbau des sensorischen Apparates bei Schielenden. Albrecht v Graefes Arch klin exp Ophthalmol 1948; 725–40.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Richards W. Stereoperimetry: new technique for analyzing visual function. J opt Soc Am 1972; 62:715 A.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Romano PE, Noorden GKv. Atypical responses to the 4-diopter prism test. Am J Ophthalmol 1969; 67:935–41.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schor CM. Zero retinal image disparity: a stimulus for suppression in small angle strabismus. Doc Ophthalmol 1978; 149–160.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Setayesh AR, Khodadoust AA, Daryani SM. Microtropia. Arch Ophthalmol 1978; 96:1842–47.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sireteanu R, Fronius M, Singer M. Binocular interaction in the peripheral visual field of humans with strabismic and anisometropic amblyopia. Vision Res 1981; 1065–74.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Swan KC. Colored filters and screens for studying monocular perception in binocular vision. Doc Ophthalmol 1973; 34:371–80.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Travers TàB. Suppression of vision in squint and its association with retinal correspondence and amblyopia. Br J Ophthalmol 1938; 22:577–604.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Tschermak Av. Optischer Raumsinn. In: Bethe A, Bergmann Av, Embden G, Ehinger A, eds. Handbuch der normalen und pathologischen Physiologie. vol 12, 2. Berlin: Springer 1931:834–1000.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Verhoeff FH. A new theory of binocular vision. Arch Ophthalmol 1935; 13:151–75.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wheatstone C. Contributions to the physiology of vision: part the first. On some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision. Phil Trans R Soc Lond 1838; 128:371–94.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wheatstone C. The Bakerian Lecture. Contributions to the physiology of vision. Part the second. On some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena and binocular vision. Phil Trans R Soc Lond 1852; -:1–17.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ziering J. Schielaugenfunktion und Schielablenkung. Albrecht v Graefes Arch klin exp Ophthalmol 1938; 139:759–89.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ekkehard Mehdorn
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyMedical University of LübeckFRG

Personalised recommendations