Purchase this article with an account.
M.L. Rice, D.A. Leske, J.M. Holmes; Ocular Dominance Depends on Test Distance and Specific Activity . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):4309.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Ocular dominance appears to be an important factor in the degree of disability caused by monocular visual loss. The assessment of ocular dominance is controversial. Existing tests include the distance hole–in–the–card test and observing an exo shift during convergence. We developed a near ocular dominance test modeled after the distance hole–in–the card test and assessed test–retest reliability of each test and agreement between tests.
Twenty–nine subjects ages 25 to 78 years with visual acuity 20/40 or better in each eye were enrolled. All subjects had normal eye exams, with the exception of refractive error, and were examined in their habitual correction. They were asked to name their dominant eye, specify handedness, and which eye they used for a camera and gun. Subjects were tested with each of the dominance tests and the PEDIG reading preference test. Each test was performed twice for each subject. Test–retest reliability and agreement between tests were evaluated using the Kappa statistic.
There was excellent test–retest reliability for the distance hole–in–the–card test, new near hole–in–the–card test, convergence test, and PEDIG reading fixation test (Kappas, k=0.72, 0.65, 0.88, 0.70). In contrast, the agreement between the distance hole–in–the–card test and the new near hole–in–the–card test was poor (k=0.12). There was poor agreement between the near hole–in–the–card test and PEDIG reading preference test (k=0.09) or the convergence test (k=0.09). There was moderate agreement between the distance hole–in–the–card test and recalled dominant eye (k=0.45) and fair agreement of recalled dominant eye with both the convergence test (k=0.26) and the PEDIG reading fixation test (k=0.39). Handedness and gun or camera sighting preference agreed poorly with all dominance tests (k<0.19).
Although there was excellent test–retest reliability of each ocular dominance test, there was poor agreement between tests. Assessment of ocular dominance depends on testing condition, and ocular dominance may vary, for an individual, depending on test distance and specific activity.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only