The Bifixation Field as a Function of Viewing Distance
Hering reported that the area over which he could bifixate a target was smaller at near convergence distances than far convergence distances and predicted that in extreme horizontal gaze positions, the temporally directed eye lags behind the nasally directed eye. We tested these predictions using a...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2014-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Ophthalmology |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/274803 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832549287435698176 |
|---|---|
| author | Philip M. Grove Alistair P. Mapp Hiroshi Ono |
| author_facet | Philip M. Grove Alistair P. Mapp Hiroshi Ono |
| author_sort | Philip M. Grove |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Hering reported that the area over which he could bifixate a target was smaller at near convergence distances than far convergence distances and predicted that in extreme horizontal gaze positions, the temporally directed eye lags behind the nasally directed eye. We tested these predictions using a subjective index of eye position. Experiment 1 confirmed that the bifixation field was significantly smaller at near convergence distances. When bifixation broke down at the near distance, the nasally directed eye lagged behind the temporally directed eye for all observers. At the far distance, the nasally directed eye preceded the temporally directed eye for four of six observers. Experiment 2 also confirmed that the bifixation field was smaller at near convergence distances but the nasally directed eye always lagged behind the temporally directed eye at the limits of the bifixation field. We confirmed Hering’s first prediction that the bifixation field is smaller at near convergence distances than at far ones. However, the majority of our results indicate that the nasally directed eye lags behind the temporally directed eye at the limits of the bifixation field, contrary to Hering’s prediction. We conclude that the eyes drift toward their tonic state of vergence when fusion breaks. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-14a7e4ec2673429a98cecf719be5c6b5 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-004X 2090-0058 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2014-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Ophthalmology |
| spelling | doaj-art-14a7e4ec2673429a98cecf719be5c6b52025-02-03T06:11:42ZengWileyJournal of Ophthalmology2090-004X2090-00582014-01-01201410.1155/2014/274803274803The Bifixation Field as a Function of Viewing DistancePhilip M. Grove0Alistair P. Mapp1Hiroshi Ono2School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, AustraliaCentre for Vision Research and Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, CanadaCentre for Vision Research and Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, CanadaHering reported that the area over which he could bifixate a target was smaller at near convergence distances than far convergence distances and predicted that in extreme horizontal gaze positions, the temporally directed eye lags behind the nasally directed eye. We tested these predictions using a subjective index of eye position. Experiment 1 confirmed that the bifixation field was significantly smaller at near convergence distances. When bifixation broke down at the near distance, the nasally directed eye lagged behind the temporally directed eye for all observers. At the far distance, the nasally directed eye preceded the temporally directed eye for four of six observers. Experiment 2 also confirmed that the bifixation field was smaller at near convergence distances but the nasally directed eye always lagged behind the temporally directed eye at the limits of the bifixation field. We confirmed Hering’s first prediction that the bifixation field is smaller at near convergence distances than at far ones. However, the majority of our results indicate that the nasally directed eye lags behind the temporally directed eye at the limits of the bifixation field, contrary to Hering’s prediction. We conclude that the eyes drift toward their tonic state of vergence when fusion breaks.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/274803 |
| spellingShingle | Philip M. Grove Alistair P. Mapp Hiroshi Ono The Bifixation Field as a Function of Viewing Distance Journal of Ophthalmology |
| title | The Bifixation Field as a Function of Viewing Distance |
| title_full | The Bifixation Field as a Function of Viewing Distance |
| title_fullStr | The Bifixation Field as a Function of Viewing Distance |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Bifixation Field as a Function of Viewing Distance |
| title_short | The Bifixation Field as a Function of Viewing Distance |
| title_sort | bifixation field as a function of viewing distance |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/274803 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT philipmgrove thebifixationfieldasafunctionofviewingdistance AT alistairpmapp thebifixationfieldasafunctionofviewingdistance AT hiroshiono thebifixationfieldasafunctionofviewingdistance AT philipmgrove bifixationfieldasafunctionofviewingdistance AT alistairpmapp bifixationfieldasafunctionofviewingdistance AT hiroshiono bifixationfieldasafunctionofviewingdistance |