After surgery, with the normal eye (NE) viewing, vertical pursuit by the PE became slower, as measured in the changes in the velocity ratios that reflected the degree of pursuit disconjugacy. During the immediate post-lesion period, when the PE of the monkey was habitually patched, both animals showed a reduction of velocity ratios for both upward and downward pursuit (up to 19% in M1 and 28% in M2 at straight ahead). Because the secondary action of the superior oblique muscle (SOM) is infraduction, a decrease of the velocity ratio in the contraction direction (downward) of the SOM is expected after the SOP. Seemingly paradoxical, however, was a similar decrease in the velocity ratio during relaxation (upward) of SOM. There are several reasons that may account for the abnormality in upward tracking. The contribution of the SOM to tracking not only consists of an increase in active force in the agonist during downward tracking but also a decrease in active force when it is the antagonist muscle (during upward tracking). When the paretic muscle is the antagonist, this decrement in active force is missing, so the contribution to the forces that rotate the eye upward is less. Another explanation, not necessarily mutually exclusive, is that adaptive mechanisms contribute to the decrease in upward tracking when the paretic muscle is acting as an antagonist, to prevent the misalignment from increasing as the eyes move upward in the orbit.
We also found that the pursuit velocity ratio depended on vertical eye position. Since the relative contribution of contraction of the agonist and relaxation of the antagonist varies with orbital position, a paresis of SOM in an agonist-antagonist pair also leads to an orbital-position-dependent imbalance. During downward tracking, we found that the velocity ratios were stable over the central positions (implying a relatively constant effect of the loss of agonist forces on tracking), but in up-gaze positions, the velocity ratios decreased gradually as the eye moved downward. This result is compatible with an increase in the relative contribution of the SOM to rotation of the globe downward as it moves into infraduction. There was, however, also a slight increase in the velocity ratio as the eyes moved far down in the lower positions, suggesting that inferior rectus forces become more important here, lessening the need for contribution of the (paralyzed) SOM. During upward tracking, however, the velocity ratios decreased (moved farther from 1.0) as the eyes moved up from eccentric downward positions. This seems counterintuitive, but has to be the case, because the vertical phorias decreased as the eyes move upward.
After binocular viewing was allowed, both animals showed a large, further decrease of velocity ratios in the downward direction when measured at the end of the 30-day post-lesion period. The reason for this further
increase in disconjugacy for downward pursuit is uncertain, but it may reflect the same mechanisms associated with
increased static misalignment after the restoration of habitual both eyes viewing.
9 Schor et al.
15 studied the interactions between static vertical phoria adaptation and nonconjugate adaptation of vertical pursuits in normal humans. They suggested that vertical phoria and nonconjugate pursuit adaptation share a common mechanism. Our results are compatible with this idea. Over the 30-day period of study, we found a strong correlation between the pursuit velocity ratios and static phorias in both monkeys. Whether these late changes are due to central adaptive mechanisms or to changes in the mechanics of the denervated and lengthened SOM (or other vertical muscles) or both, remains to be shown.
When viewing with the PE, the two monkeys showed a different pattern of change in the velocity ratios over time. M1 had a further decrease in the downward direction, but M2 had an increase in the upward direction. When compared with the results with NE viewing, the velocity ratio with the PE viewing was significantly higher for both directions in M2 but not in M1. The reason for these differences could be that two monkeys adopted different patterns of fixation during habitual binocular viewing. M2 preferred to fix with her paretic eye and M1 with her normal eye. If the paretic eye was preferentially used for fixating, some degree of
conjugate adaptation would likely be invoked in the attempt to optimize tracking for the paretic eye.
16