» Articles » PMID: 37141181

Feasibility of Measuring Fusional Vergence Amplitudes Objectively

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2023 May 4
PMID 37141181
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Two tests to measure fusional vergence amplitudes objectively were developed and validated against the two conventional clinical tests. Forty-nine adults participated in the study. Participants' negative (BI, base in) and positive (BO, base out) fusional vergence amplitudes at near were measured objectively in an haploscopic set-up by recording eye movements with an EyeLink 1000 Plus (SR Research). Stimulus disparity changed in steps or smoothly mimicking a prim bar and a Risley prism, respectively. Break and recovery points were determined offline using a custom Matlab algorithm for the analysis of eye movements. Fusional vergence amplitudes were also measured with two clinical tests using a Risley prism and a prism bar. A better agreement between tests was found for the measurement of BI than for BO fusional vergence amplitudes. The means ± SD of the differences between the BI break and recovery points measured with the two objective tests were -1.74 ± 3.35 PD and -1.97 ± 2.60 PD, respectively, which were comparable to those obtained for the subjective tests. For the BO break and recovery points, although the means of the differences between the two objective tests were small, high variability between subjects was found (0.31 ± 6.44 PD and -2.84 ± 7.01 PD, respectively). This study showed the feasibility to measure fusional vergence amplitudes objectively and overcome limitations of the conventional subjective tests. However, these tests cannot be used interchangeably due to their poor agreement.

Citing Articles

The Effect of Prism Presentation Order on Near Vertical Fusional Vergence Ranges of Normal Young Adults.

Gantz L, Shneor E, Shaw N, Doron R Clin Ophthalmol. 2024; 18:3473-3484.

PMID: 39618986 PMC: 11608033. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S492994.


The Interaction between Vergence and Accommodation Cues in the Assessment of Fusional Vergence Range.

Argiles M, Cardona G Life (Basel). 2024; 14(9).

PMID: 39337967 PMC: 11433039. DOI: 10.3390/life14091185.


Comparison of vergence mechanisms between university students with good and poor sleep quality.

Woi P, Lu J, Hairol M, Ibrahim W Int J Ophthalmol. 2024; 17(2):353-358.

PMID: 38371264 PMC: 10827629. DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2024.02.19.

References
1.
Scheiman M, Cooper J, Mitchell G, de L, Cotter S, Borsting E . A survey of treatment modalities for convergence insufficiency. Optom Vis Sci. 2002; 79(3):151-7. DOI: 10.1097/00006324-200203000-00009. View

2.
Rowe F . Fusional vergence measures and their significance in clinical assessment. Strabismus. 2010; 18(2):48-57. DOI: 10.3109/09273971003758412. View

3.
RASHBASS C, Westheimer G . Disjunctive eye movements. J Physiol. 1961; 159:339-60. PMC: 1359509. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.1961.sp006812. View

4.
Wesson M . Normalization of prism bar vergences. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1982; 59(8):628-34. DOI: 10.1097/00006324-198208000-00002. View

5.
Lara F, Cacho P, Garcia A, Megias R . General binocular disorders: prevalence in a clinic population. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2001; 21(1):70-4. DOI: 10.1046/j.1475-1313.2001.00540.x. View