Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Eye preference within the context of binocular functions

  • Laboratory Investigation
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Eye preference refers to an asymmetric use of the two eyes, but it does not imply a unitary asymmetry between the eyes. Many different methods are used to assess eye preference, including eyedness questionnaires and sighting tasks that require binocular and monocular alignment of a target through a hole in the middle of a card or funnel. The results of these coarse accounts of eye preference are useful as a first screening, but do not allow for graded quantification of the manifested asymmetry in binocular vision. Moreover, they often concern only a rather selective range of binocular functions. The aim of the present study was to further differentiate eye preference within the context of other binocular functions as measured in standard optometric tests, and to validate their relation to questionnaire data of eyedness.

Methods

Conventional accounts of eye preference (German adaptation of Coren’s questionnaire and a sighting task) were compared with various optometric tests of binocular function within a sample of 103 subjects. Examination included visual acuity and accommodation in each eye, stereoscopic prevalence, suppression due to binocular rivalry, fixation disparity (Mallett test).

Results

Sighting dominance was leftward in 32% and rightward in 68% of the cases and was highly correlated (Kendall’s τb=0.70) with eyedness. Further significant associations were restricted to stereoscopic prevalence which correlated with sighting dominance (τb=0.55), eyedness (τb=0.50), and rivalry dominance (τb=0.28).

Conclusion

Eye preference seems to be essentially reflected by eyedness, sighting dominance, and stereoscopic prevalence, but largely unrelated to fixation disparity, accommodation, and visual acuity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Annett M (1999) Eye dominance in families predicted by the right shift theory. Laterality 4:167–172

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arnold-Schulz-Gahmen BE, Siefer A, Ehrenstein WH (2004) Eye-dominance distributions differ between men and women. Perception 33(suppl):97c

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brackenridge CJ (1982) The contribution of genetic factors to ocular dominance. Behav Genet 12:319–325

    Google Scholar 

  4. Conover WJ (1999) Practical nonparametric statistics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Coren S (1993) The lateral preference inventory for measurement of handedness, footedness, eyedness, and earedness: norms for young adults. Bull Psychon Soc 31:1–3

    Google Scholar 

  6. Coren S, Kaplan CP (1973) Patterns of ocular dominance. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 50:283–292

    Google Scholar 

  7. Crider BA (1944) A battery of tests for the dominant eye. J Genet Psychol 31:179–190

    Google Scholar 

  8. Davson H (1990) Physiology of the eye, 5th edn. MacMillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dodrill CB, Thoreson NS (1993) Reliability of the lateral dominance examination. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 15:183–190

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ehrenstein WH, Arnold-Schulz-Gahmen BE (1997) Ohr, Auge, Hand und Fuß: Bestimmung des individuellen Lateralitätsprofils. IfADo, Dortmund (http://www.ergonetz.de/lateralitaet/)

  11. Ehrenstein WH, Wagner M (2004) Eye dominance and interocular stability of oculomotor behaviour during fixation on 2-D surface for restrained and unrestrained head postures. Perception 33(suppl):94b

    Google Scholar 

  12. Erdogan R, Ozdikici M, Aydin MD, Aktas O, Dane S (2002) Right and left visual cortex in healthy subjects with right- and left-eye dominance. Int J Neurosci 112:517–523

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gerling J, de Paz H, Schroth V, Bach M, Kommerell G (2000) Ist die Feststellung einer Fixationsdisparation mit der Mess- und Korrekturmethodik nach H.-J. Haase (MKH) verlässlich? Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 216:401–411

    Google Scholar 

  14. Haase HJ (1995) Zur Fixationsdisparation. Heidelberg: Verlag Optische Fachveröffentlichung GmbH (ISBN 3-922269-17-6)

  15. Howard IP (2002) Seeing in depth, vol. 1. Basic mechanisms. Toronto: I. Porteous

  16. Howard IP, Rogers BJ (2002) Seeing in depth, vol. 2. Depth perception. Toronto: I. Porteous

  17. Jaschinski W (2001) Methods for measuring the proximity–fixation–disparity curve. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 21:368–375

    Google Scholar 

  18. Khan AZ, Crawford JD (2001) Ocular dominance reverses as a function of gaze angle. Vis Res 41:1743–1748

    Google Scholar 

  19. Khan AZ, Crawford JD (2003) Coordinating one hand with two eyes: optimizing for field of view in a pointing task. Vis Res 43:409–417

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kommerell G, Schmitt C, Kromeier M, Bach M (2003) Ocular prevalence versus ocular dominance. Vis Res 43:1397–1403

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kromeier M, Schmitt C, Bach M, Kommerell G (2002) Bessern Prismen nach Hans-Joachim Haase die Augenprävalenz? Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 219:422–428

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mallett RF (1964) The investigation of heterophoria at near and a new fixation disparity technique. Optician 148:547–551

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mapp AP, Ono H, Barbeito R (2003) What does the dominant eye dominate? A brief and somewhat contentious review. Percept Psychophys 65:310–317

    Google Scholar 

  24. Matsumura I, Maruyama S, Ishikawa Y, Hirano R, Kobayashi K, Kohayakawa S (1983) The design of an open view autorefractor. In: Breining GM, Siegel IM (Eds), Advances in diagnostic visual optics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 36–42

    Google Scholar 

  25. McBrien NA, Millodot M (1985) Clinical evaluation of the Canon Autoref R-1. Am J Optom Opt 62:786–792

    Google Scholar 

  26. Menon RS, Ogawa S, Strupp JP, Ugurbil K (1997) Ocular dominance in human V1 demonstrated by functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurophysiol 77:2780–2787

    Google Scholar 

  27. Miles W (1930) Ocular dominance in human adults. J Genet Psychol 3:412–429

    Google Scholar 

  28. Porac C, Coren S (1975) Suppressive processes in binocular vision: ocular dominance and amblyopia. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 52:651–657

    Google Scholar 

  29. Porac C, Coren S (1976) The dominant eye. Psychol Bull 83:880–897

    Google Scholar 

  30. Porac C, Coren S (1981) Lateral preferences and human behavior. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  31. Reiss M, Reiss G (1997) Ocular dominance: some family data. Laterality 2:7–15

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rombouts AR, Barkhof F, Sprenger M, Valk J, Scheltens P (1996) The functional basis of ocular dominance: functional MRI (fMRI) findings. Neurosci Lett 221:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rosenbach O (1903) Ueber monokulare Vorherrschaft beim binokularen Sehen. Münchener Medizin Wochenschr 30:1290–1292

    Google Scholar 

  34. Smith EL III, Levi DM, Manny RE, Harwerth RS, White JM (1985) The relationship between binocular rivalry and strabismic suppression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 29:80–87

    Google Scholar 

  35. von Noorden GK (1990) Binocular vision and ocular motility. Mosby, St Louis

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wade NJ (1998) Early studies of eye dominances. Laterality 3:97–108

    Google Scholar 

  37. Walls GL (1951) A theory of ocular dominance. Arch Ophthalmol 45:387–412

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Carola Reiffen and Anke Siefer assisted in data collection and analysis, Ute Lobisch in preparing the figures; Prof. Guntram Kommerell and Dr. Michael Wagner commented on an earlier draft. An anonymous reviewer made very constructive and most detailed suggestions for further improvement of the manuscript. We thank them all.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leibniz Research Center for Working Environment and Human Factors, University of Dortmund, Ardeystrasse 67, 44139, Dortmund, Germany

    Walter H. Ehrenstein, Birgit E. Arnold-Schulz-Gahmen & Wolfgang Jaschinski

Authors
  1. Walter H. Ehrenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Birgit E. Arnold-Schulz-Gahmen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wolfgang Jaschinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Walter H. Ehrenstein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ehrenstein, W.H., Arnold-Schulz-Gahmen, B.E. & Jaschinski, W. Eye preference within the context of binocular functions. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243, 926–932 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-005-1128-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-005-1128-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation