Abstract
In binocular vision, the relative strength of the input from the two eyes can have significant functional impact. These inputs are typically balanced, however in some conditions (e.g. amblyopia) one eye will dominate over the other. To quantify imbalances in binocular vision, we have developed the Dichoptic Contrast Ordering Test (DiCOT). Implemented on a tablet device, the program uses rankings of perceived contrast (of dichoptically-presented stimuli) to find a scaling factor that balances the two eyes. We measured how physical interventions (applied to one eye) affect the DiCOT measurement. These were: i) neutral density filters, ii) Bangerter filters, and iii) optical blur introduced by a +3 D lens. The DiCOT results were compared to those from the Dichoptic Letter Test (DLT). Both the DiCOT and the DLT showed excellent test-retest reliability, however the magnitude of the imbalances introduced by the interventions was greater in the DLT. To find consistency between the methods, rescaling the DiCOT results from individual conditions gave good results. However, the adjustments needed for the +3 D lens condition were quite different from those for the ND and Bangerter filter. Our results indicate that the DiCOT and DLT measure partially separate aspects of binocular imbalance. This supports the simultaneous use of both measures in future studies.
Competing Interest Statement
Authors ASB and RFH are inventors on a patent application (PCT/CA2024/050874) that describes the inventive aspects of the DiCOT measurement tool. The study protocol was designed by the authors AR, ASB and RFH, and conducted by all authors at RI-MUHC; McGill University. Novartis Pharma AG (Basel) supported the study with funds under a research agreement entered into on March 31st, 2020.
Funding Statement
Novartis Pharma AG (Basel) supported the study with funds under a research agreement entered into on March 31st, 2020.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Institutional Research Ethics Board of the McGill University Health Center gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
