June 2020
Volume 61, Issue 7
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2020
Spatial localization during monocular and dichoptic viewing
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Apoorva Karsolia
    University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Scott Stevenson
    University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Vallabh E Das
    University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Apoorva Karsolia, None; Scott Stevenson, None; Vallabh Das, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH Grant RO1 EY026568, NIH Grant P30 EY07551, 2019 Fight for Sight Summer Student Fellowship, 2019 Minnie and Roseanna Turner Fund for Impaired Vision Research
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2020, Vol.61, 5094. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Apoorva Karsolia, Scott Stevenson, Vallabh E Das; Spatial localization during monocular and dichoptic viewing. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2020;61(7):5094.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose : To investigate the accuracy and precision of localization under monocular and dichoptic viewing conditions in individuals with normal ocular alignment, to ultimately evaluate the role of eye position signals in spatial localization in individuals with strabismus.

Methods : Stimuli were rear projected onto a curved screen (field of view 180° x 90°), with a dynamic noise background. A target disc (1.5°) was flashed for 1 sec, followed after a delay (0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 5, or 7 secs) by a response disc. Subjects fixated on the response disc, and used a mouse to move it to the remembered location of the target. The experiments were performed under monocular viewing and dichoptic viewing with red-green glasses. Under dichoptic viewing, four conditions [green target – green response cue (GG), green-red (GR), red-green (RG), and red-red (RR)] were tested. Errors in localization were calculated as the difference between the estimated and real positions of the target cue. For each subject, ~30 trials with same time intervals were pooled, and localization error was quantified as the area of the 68th percentile bivariate contour ellipse (BCEA).

Results : Under monocular viewing (n=8), the mean monocular horizontal localization error was close to 0° and was not different between 0.5 and 7 seconds (p>0.05, ANOVA) in all subjects. BCEA increased linearly with time under monocular viewing in all subjects. During dichoptic testing (n=3), mean horizontal error from same eye trials was close to 0° (mean GG: 0.30°, mean RR: 0.46°). For alternate eye trials, there was a shift in horizontal localization error (mean GR: -3.68°, mean RG: -5.27°) that corresponded to the mean phoria (mean GR: -2.78°, mean: RG -2.68°) recorded during the testing procedure; however trial-by-trial correlation between phoria and localization error was weak. For same eye trials, the BCEA increased linearly with time, but for alternate eye trials, the BCEA reached saturation for larger time intervals in 2/3 subjects.

Conclusions : Spatial localization becomes progressively worse with time. Under dichoptic viewing, subjects are unable to compensate for their phoria during spatial localization. An interpretation is that oculomotor proprioception may not provide the required feedback of eye position. Testing strabismus subjects could add insight into the relationship between eye position feedback and spatial localization.

This is a 2020 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.


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.