Sains Malaysiana 46(10)(2017): 19131921

http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/jsm-2017-4610-30

 

Perbandingan Zon Interaksi Ruang Dua Dimensi Subjek Normal dan Ambliopia Anisometropik

(Comparison of Two Dimension Spatial Interaction Zones between Normal Vision and Anisometropic Amblyopia)

 

MOHD IZZUDDIN HAIROL*, NORAZIZAH ABD LATIF, WOI PUI JUAN, NURUL HAFIZAH AHMAD RASHAIDI & SHARANJEET-KAUR

 

Program Optometri & Sains Penglihatan, Fakulti Sains Kesihatan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300 Kuala Lumpur

 

Received: 29 May 2017/Accepted: 11 August 2017

 

ABSTRAK

Akuiti visual subjek ambliopia anisometropik sering disimulasi pada individu normal dengan mengkaburkan penglihatan fovea mereka. Walau bagaimanapun, prestasi akuiti visual periferi subjek ini tidak diketahui dan kaedah pengkaburan ini tidak semestinya dapat mensimulasi penglihatan periferi mereka. Untuk mendalami ketepatan kaedah ini, kami mengkaji akuiti dan bentuk zon interaksi ruang di fovea dan periferi retina subjek normal dan ambliopia anisometropik serta kesan pengkaburan pada akuiti subjek normal pada esentrisiti retina yang berbeza untuk dibandingkan dengan periferi subjek ambliopia. Akuiti diukur menggunakan Kaedah Rangsangan Malar untuk huruf Sheridan-Gardiner pada 6 orang subjek normal dan 6 orang subjek ambliopia anisometropik. Kesan kesesakan diukur dengan membandingkan respons pengesanan huruf sasaran yang diapit oleh huruf lain yang diletakkan pada orientasi mendatar, menegak dan pepenjuru. Rangsangan dipaparkan pada fovea dan 2.5, 5 dan 10 darjah di medan penglihatan inferior. Selain itu, akuiti fovea 4 orang subjek normal dikaburkan supaya sepadan dengan akuiti fovea subjek ambliopia menggunakan kaedah pengkaburan optik dan penuras digital Gaussian. Subjek normal menunjukkan kemerosotan akuiti yang lebih besar dengan peningkatan esentrisiti retina (E2: 2.250.21) berbanding subjek ambliopia anisometropik (E2: 6.021.45). Kesemua subjek menunjukkan zon interaksi ruang yang tidak simetri di kesemua esentrisiti retina yang diuji. Interaksi antara jenis kabur dan esentrisiti retina adalah signifikan F(2.13,6.38)=4.93, p=0.049) tetapi akuiti subjek normal yang dikaburkan dengan kedua-dua kaedah pengkaburan tidak berbeza secara signifikan dengan akuiti subjek ambliopia. Zon interaksi ruang subjek ambliopia anisometropik adalah sama dengan subjek normal. Akuiti fovea subjek ambliopia anisometropik lebih teruk berbanding subjek normal kerana peningkatan pengkaburan intrinsik. Walau bagaimanapun, periferi subjek ambliopia adalah normal secara fungsian.

 

Kata kunci: Ambliopia anisometropik; kesan kesesakan; pengkaburan; penglihatan fovea; penglihatan periferi

 

ABSTRACT

Visual acuity of anisometropic amblyopes is often simulated in visually normal individuals by imposing blur on their foveal vision. However, their peripheral visual acuity and whether the same method can simulate their peripheral vision are unknown. We examined acuity and shape of spatial interaction zones at the fovea and in the periphery, in normal participants and anisometropic amblyopes; and the effect of imposed blur on acuity at different eccentricities in normal participants to compare with the amblyopic periphery. Acuity was measured with Method of Constant Stimuli using Sheridan-Gardiner letters in 6 normal and 6 amblyopic participants. Crowding was assessed by comparing performance for a letter flanked by other letters placed at horizontal, vertical and oblique orientations. Stimuli were presented foveally and at 2.5, 5 and 10 degrees in the lower visual field. In addition, foveal acuity of 4 normal participants was blurred to match the mean amblyopic acuity using Gaussian and optical defocus. Acuity was then re-measured across the lower visual field. Normal participants showed larger acuity deterioration with increasing eccentricity (E2 of 2.250.21) than did anisometropic amblyopes (E2 of 6.021.45). Both groups exhibited asymmetric crowding regions at all locations. Acuity was worse with optical blur compared to with Gaussian blur (significant blur type and eccentricity interaction, F(2.13,6.38)=4.93, p=0.049) but neither was significantly different from the acuity of amblyopes. Anisometropic amblyopia demonstrated similar asymmetric crowding regions to those found in normal vision, i.e. generally larger crowding for arrangements radial to the fixation point. Foveal acuity in anisometropic amblyopia was worse due to increased intrinsic blur relative to normal vision; however, their periphery appeared to be functionally normal.

 

Keywords: Anisometropic amblyopia; blur; crowding effect; foveal vision; peripheral vision

 

REFERENCES

Atchison, D.A., Pritchard, N., Schmid, K.L., Scott, D.H., Jones, C.E. & Pope, J.M. 2005. Shape of the retinal surface in emmetropia and myopia. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 46(8): 2698-2707. doi:10.1167/iovs.04-1506.

Bjork, E.L. & Murray, J.T. 1977. On the nature of input channels in visual processing. Psychological Review 84(5): 472-484.

Bouma, H. 1970. Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition. Nature 226(5241): 177-178. doi:10.1038/226177a0.

Brainard, D.H. 1997. The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision 10(4): 433-436. doi:10.1163/156856897X00357.

Ciuffreda, K., Levi, D. & Selenow, A. 1991. Amblyopia: Basic and Clinical Aspects. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Felisberti, F.M., Solomon, J.A. & Morgan, M.J. 2005. The role of target salience in crowding. Perception 34(7): 823-833. doi:10.1068/p5206.

Feng, C., Jiang, Y. & He, S. 2007. Horizontal and vertical asymmetry in visual spatial crowding effects. Journal of Vision 7(2): 13.1-10. doi:10.1167/7.2.13.

Flom, M.C., Weymouth, F.W. & Kahneman, D. 1963. Visual resolution and contour interaction. Journal of the Optical Society of America 53(9): 1026. doi:10.1364/ JOSA.53.001026.

Hairol, M.I., Abd-Latif, N.A., Low, P., Lim, W.P., Aik, J.Y. & Kaur, S. 2015. Effects of foveal and eccentric viewing on the resolution and contrast thresholds of individual letters. Psychology & Neuroscience 8(2): 183-192. doi:10.1037/ h0101060.

Hairol, M.I., Formankiewicz, M.A. & Waugh, S.J. 2013. Foveal visual acuity is worse and shows stronger contour interaction effects for contrast-modulated than luminance-modulated Cs. Visual Neuroscience 30(3): 105-120. doi:10.1017/ S0952523813000102.

Hussin, D.A., Omar, R. & Knight, V.F. 2009. Penyebab masalah penglihatan di kalangan kanak-kanak prasekolah di Daerah Sitiawan, Perak, Malaysia. Sains Malaysiana 38(6): 959-964.

Jacobs, R.J. 1979. Visual resolution and contour interaction in the fovea and periphery. Vision Research 19(11): 1187-1195. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(79)90183-4.

Kaur, S., Azwa, W., Mohd. Fadzil, N. & Ariffin, A.E. 2011. Patching therapy in patients with strabismic amblyopia and refractive amblyopia. Sains Malaysiana 40(11): 1325-1329.

Levi, D.M. & Klein, S.A. 1990. Equivalent intrinsic blur in amblyopia. Vision Research 30(12): 1995-2022.

Levi, D.M., Klein, S.A. & Aitsebaomo, A.P. 1985. Vernier acuity, crowding and cortical magnification. Vision Research 25(7): 963-977. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/004269898590207X.

Mutti, D.O., Hayes, J.R., Mitchell, G.L., Jones, L.A., Moeschberger, M.L., Cotter, S.A., Kleinstein, R.N., Manny, R.E., Twelker, J.D., Zadnik, K. & CLEERE Study Group. 2007. Refractive error, axial length, and relative peripheral refractive error before and after the onset of myopia. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 48(6): 2510- 2519. doi:10.1167/iovs.06-0562.

Parkes, L., Lund, J., Angelucci, A., Solomon, J.A. & Morgan, M. 2001. Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision. Nature Neuroscience 4: 739-744. doi:10.1038/89532.

Saw, S.M., Chan, Y.H., Wong, W.L., Shankar, A., Sandar, M., Aung, T., Tan, D.T.H., Mitchell, P. & Wong, T.Y. 2008. Prevalence and risk factors for refractive errors in the Singapore Malay eye survey. American Academy of Ophthalmology 115: 1713- 1719. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.03.016.

Strasburger, H., Harvey, L.O. & Rentschler, I. 1991. Contrast thresholds for identification of numeric characters in direct and eccentric view. Perception & Psychophysics 49: 495-508. doi:10.3758/BF03212183.

Stuart, J.A. & Burian, H.M. 1962. A study of separation difficulty. Its relationship to visual acuity in normal and amblyopic eyes. American Journal of Ophthalmology 53: 471-477. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13917936.

Tanlamai, T. & Goss, D. 1979. Prevalence of monocular amblyopia among anisometropes. American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics 56(11): 704-715.

Toet, A. & Levi, D.M. 1992. The two-dimensional shape of spatial interaction zones in the parafovea. Vision Research 32: 1349- 1357. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(92)90227-A.

Weakley, D.R. 2001. The association between nonstrabismic anisometropia, amblyopia, and subnormal binocularity. Ophthalmology 108: 163-171.

 

*Corresponding author, email; email: izzuddin.hairol@ukm.edu.my

 

 

 

 

 

 

previous