December 2002
Volume 43, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   December 2002
Binocular Disparity Suppresses the Monocular VEP Response to Vernier Targets
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • SP McKee
    Smith-Kettlewell Eye Rsch Inst San Francisco CA
  • Y Bonneh
    Smith-Kettlewell Eye Rsch Inst San Francisco CA
  • AM Norcia
    Smith-Kettlewell Eye Rsch Inst San Francisco CA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   S.P. McKee, None; Y. Bonneh, None; A.M. Norcia, None. Grant Identification: EY06644 to SPM; EY12348 to AMN
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science December 2002, Vol.43, 4678. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      SP McKee, Y Bonneh, AM Norcia; Binocular Disparity Suppresses the Monocular VEP Response to Vernier Targets . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2002;43(13):4678.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose:Normal fusion of disparate targets involves a process that actively suppresses monocularly visible information (McKee & Harrad, 1993). In psychophysical measurements, if a standard vernier target, presented to one eye, is paired with a similar target in the other eye that has a large fixed offset, vernier acuity for the fused target is degraded, compared to the monocular vernier acuity. Is the monocular VEP response to vernier offsets also suppressed when paired with a static disparate target in the other eye? Methods:We recorded steady state visual evoked potentials to large offsets (6 arcmin) in vertical bars presented to one eye. Each bar contained multiple segments that repetitively aligned and misaligned at a rate of 1 Hz. We paired the oscillating vernier bars in one eye with static vertical bars in the other eye. The static bars were either straight or had fixed offsets corresponding to the oscillating segments in the other eye. When fused, the observer saw rows of bar segments moving in depth interspersed with fixed static segments. Results:The making and breaking of alignment of the monocularly-viewed vernier target produced a strong VEP response. When paired with static bars with no offset (0 disparity), the amplitude of the monocular VEP response was unaffected or enhanced. However, when a large offset was introduced into the static bars, thereby creating a large standing disparity, the amplitude of the monocular VEP response was strongly reduced. Similar measurements made in one amblyopic subject who lacked stereopsis showed a strong asymmetry. The VEP of the amblyopic eye was suppressed by the static bars at all disparities, but the VEP of the non-amblyopic was unaffected by the static bars in the amblyopic eye. Conclusion:The VEP response reflects the normal operations of binocular fusion. The binocular system must suppress the monocular signals that specify two discrepant visual directions, in favor of a unique binocularly-defined visual direction. This fusional operation may underlie the suppression found in non-binocular amblyopes, where it functions asymmetrically, suppressing only the amblyopic eye.

Keywords: 329 binocular vision/stereopsis • 313 amblyopia 
×
×

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.

×