A representative contraction profile of a healthy right LRM (subject 9) during 40° horizontal eye movement is shown in
Figure 2. The length of each of the eight segments along the LRM is scaled by its length at the first time frame at 20° left gaze (black solid line, first time frame). The length of each segment at the first time frame was set to 1.0. The deformation of each particular segment can be traced by following the relative length of the segment (as an example, the vertical arrows show the deformation of segment 3). For the left-to-right abducting movement, the segment with the greatest contraction was segment 5, showing a 25% shortening. The anterior half of the EOMs contracted less than the posterior half for the 40° movement range. The shape of deformation profile at the 8th time frame (gaze straight ahead) was similar to the shape of the deformation at the 15th time frame (right gaze).
In healthy subjects, the local deformation along the horizontal EOMs was heterogeneous.
Figure 3 summarizes the deformation profiles of all 11 subjects' healthy right eyes for all 15 time frames. The anterior half of the EOMs deformed less than the posterior half, in accordance with the results of Miller.
6 For all time frames, the maximum deformation amplitude was closer to the orbital apex than to the scleral insertion of the muscles. All deformation maxima were situated at approximately two thirds of the muscle lengths from the scleral insertions. For the right eye left-to-right movement (abduction), the maximum local contraction of the LRM was 22%, whereas the MRM elongated locally up to 30%. For movements from right-to-left (adduction), the maximum local elongation of the LRM was 26%, whereas the MRM contracted locally by 26%. The maximum local deformations of the LRM (contraction 22%, elongation 26%) were smaller than the maximum local deformations of the MRM (contraction 26%, elongation 30%). This result is expected, as the LRM is longer than the MRM. Nevertheless, the deformation kinetics were almost homogeneous: nearly no change of profile shape was observed during the eye movement. Furthermore, for each EOM, the difference between abduction and adduction deformation profiles is hardly striking.
The ON deformations were roughly 10 times smaller than the deformation of the EOM segments (
Fig. 3A.3,
3A.6). The deformations of the ON segments were also more homogenous than the deformation of the EOMs. The ON relative segment lengths reached a minimum at the eighth or ninth time frame for both eye movement directions, corresponding approximately to gaze straight ahead. Here, the ON is curled in the orbit most. Since the deformation of the ON could only be reported in the axial image plane, the ON curling out of this plane is misleadingly interpreted as shortening of the ON.
Figure 3B shows the corresponding standard deviations (SDs) among the 11 subjects. Each curve corresponds to a time frame. The SDs increased with time, but stayed below 8% of the normalized segment lengths. The larger SDs of the LRM segments of the (slimmer) anterior half compared to the (thicker) posterior half were due to (in plane) partial volume effects that appeared at the interface of tissues with different movements. The average SD at the 15th time frame of the segments 10 to 30 was approximately 0.06. This corresponded to a mean SD increase of 0.06/15 = 0.4% per time frame. If the tissue deformations of all subjects were identical (no biological variation), the average tracking error per time frame could be estimated to be 0.4% of the segment length at that time frame.
Subsequently, the deformation of two DSTI horizontal EOMs were compared to the healthy group. Some segments of the DSTI EOMs deformed inversely to the healthy EOMs (
Fig. 4). Patients' data outside the (4 SDs broad) error bar interval differed significantly from normal. In particular, the deformation of the posterior part of the DSTI LRMs differed significantly from the healthy group. In
Figures 4A.6–A.8, segments 7 and 8 showed aberrant contraction (see arrows, values below 1.0); segments 5 and 6 showed a smaller elongation than normal, and segments 1, 2, and 3 showed an elongation very similar to normal. In
Figure 4A.1, after the pathologic contraction of the posterior LRM segments 7 and 8, there was a small but significant elongation at the beginning of the opposite movement. At the beginning of abduction (
Fig. 4A.2) the DSTI LRMs contracted. From gaze straight ahead, this contraction did not result in attempted abduction (
Figs. 4A.3–A.4). Conversely, in
Figures 4B.2–B.4, the anterior segments 1 and 2 of the DSTI MRM deformed inversely to the healthy MRM, whereas the DSTI MRM posterior half deformed similarly to the normal MRM. Albeit, because of a smaller eye movement, the DSTI MRMs deformed less than the healthy subjects' MRMs.
The local maximum deformations of the DSTI EOMs were shifted in comparison to the healthy EOMs. In contrast to healthy subjects, the DSTI LRM maximum deformations were located on segment 3, closer to the scleral insertion. (
Fig. 4A). The LRM anterior half deformed more than the posterior half. In contrast, the location of the DSTI MRM maximum deformations was slightly shifted backward to the orbital apex. The maximum local contraction of the LRM was 7% for patient 1 and 8% for patient 2, respectively, whereas the MRM relaxed locally up to 17% and 27%, respectively. The LRM maximum local elongation was 11% and 14%, respectively, whereas the MRM contracted locally 12% and 19% at most, respectively.