December 2022
Volume 22, Issue 14
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   December 2022
Using dynamic contrast estimation to assess amblyopia
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Kimberly Meier
    Department of Psychology, University of Washington
  • Kristina Tarczy-Hornoch
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Washington
  • Geoffrey M. Boynton
    Department of Psychology, University of Washington
  • Ione Fine
    Department of Psychology, University of Washington
  • Footnotes
    Acknowledgements  Research to Prevent Blindness, Knights Templar Eye Foundation
Journal of Vision December 2022, Vol.22, 4465. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.22.14.4465
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Kimberly Meier, Kristina Tarczy-Hornoch, Geoffrey M. Boynton, Ione Fine; Using dynamic contrast estimation to assess amblyopia. Journal of Vision 2022;22(14):4465. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.22.14.4465.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: Most assessments of interocular balance or suppression in amblyopia use rivalrous stimuli, which do not reflect naturalistic vision. We developed a task in which observers continuously report the perceived contrast of dichoptic grating stimuli, identical to each eye except that the stimulus is contrast-modulated independently over time. Methods: Using a mirror stereoscope, observers (n = 16 amblyopia, n = 12 controls) viewed a 2-cpd Gabor that rotated slowly, while modulating in contrast at independent rates in each eye. Observers used a joystick lever to match the perceived contrast over time. We fit a model that predicts the time-course of perceived contrast from the time-course of the contrasts in each eye. Our model parameterized attenuation as a reduction of stimulus input to the amblyopic eye and suppression as interocular normalization. We also included a dichoptic letter chart to measure balance point (the relative strength of each eye for a rivalrous stimulus). Results: Model fits show that input to the amblyopic eye was significantly more attenuated in amblyopia compared to controls (p < 0.001). Both suppression of the amblyopic by the fellow eye, and suppression of the fellow eye by the amblyopic eye, were not significantly different in the amblyopia group compared to controls (p = 0.50 and 0.74, respectively). Balance point was significantly correlated with attenuation (r = 0.48, p = 0.002), but not suppression. Conclusion: Our dynamic contrast estimation task provides estimates of attenuation and suppression under naturalistic viewing conditions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, under these conditions, suppression plays a much weaker role in amblyopia than has been observed in previous studies using rivalrous stimuli. These data also raise the possibility that the severity of suppression may not be tightly linked to amblyopic deficits in all observers, reflecting independent targets for treatment.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×