Comparison of OCT Parameters between the Dominant and Nondominant Eye

Yong Ju Song; Dae Hyun Kim

doi:10.3341/jkos.2014.55.11.1687

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.55(11) > 1009842

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Song and Kim: Comparison of OCT Parameters between the Dominant and Nondominant Eye

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2014;55(11):1687-1692.

Published online: 2 September 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2014.55.11.1687

Comparison of OCT Parameters between the Dominant and Nondominant Eye

Yong Ju Song, MD, Dae Hyun Kim, MD, PhD

Department of Ophthalmology, Chosun University College of Medicine, Gwangju, Korea

Address reprint requests to Dae Hyun Kim, MD, PhD, Department of Ophthalmology, Chosun University Hospital, #365 Pilmun-daero, Dong-gu, Gwangju 501-717, Korea, Tel: 82-62-220-3190, Fax: 82-62-225-9839, E-mail: eyelovehyun@hanmail.net

Received 21 March 2014 Revised 5 August 2014 Accepted 27 October 2014

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the anatomical difference between the dominant and nondominant eyes in healthy, young adults by measuring macular, peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (PRNFL), and macular ganglion cell layer (MGCL) thicknesses.

Methods

Two hundred healthy adults were recruited and assessed for ocular dominance using ‘a hole in the card test’. PRNFL, macular and MGCL thicknesses of both eyes were measured using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Results

There were no statistically significant differences for average thicknesses of MGCL in each of the six areas between the dominant and nondominant eyes. No difference was observed between temporal, inferior, average PRNFL thickness and macular thickness in dominant and nondominant eyes.

Conclusions

There was no intraocular anatomical difference between the dominant and nondominant eyes in healthy, young adults.

Keywords: Macular ganglion cell layer thicknesses, Macular thickness, Peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, Spectral domain OCT

References

1. Carey DP. Vision research: losing sight of eye dominance. Curr Biol. 2001; 11:R828–30.

2. Seyal M, Sato S, White BG, Porter RJ. Visual evoked potentials and eye dominance. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1981; 52:424–8.

3. Taghavy A, Kügler CF. Pattern reversal visual evoked potentials (white-black- and colour-black-PVEPs) in the study of eye dominance. Eur Arch Psychiatry Neurol Sci. 1987; 236:329–32.

4. Mendola JD, Conner IP. Eye dominance predicts fMRI signals in human retinotopic cortex. Neurosci Lett. 2007; 414:30–4.

5. Rombouts SA, Barkhof F, Sprenger M, et al. The functional basis of ocular dominance: functional MRI (fMRI) findings. Neurosci Lett. 1996; 221:1–4.

6. Mapp AP, Ono H, Barbeito R. What does the dominant eye dominate? A brief and somewhat contentious review. Percept Psychophys. 2003; 65:310–7.

7. Hubel DH, Wiesel TN. The period of susceptibility to the physiological effects of unilateral eye closure in kittens. J Physiol. 1970; 206:419–36.

8. Wiesel TN. Postnatal development of the visual cortex and the influence of environment. Nature. 1982; 299:583–91.

9. Curcio CA, Allen KA. Topography of ganglion cells in human retina. J Comp Neurol. 1990; 300:5–25.

10. Rosbnbach O. Über monokulare Vorherrschaft beim binokularen Sehen. Munchener Medizinische Wochenschrift. 1903; 30:1290–2.

11. Jain S, Arora I, Azar DT. Success of monovision in presbyopes: review of the literature and potential applications to refractive surgery. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996; 40:491–9.

12. Koo BS, Cho YA. The relationship of dominant eye, dominant hand, and deviated eye in strabismus. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1996; 37:1277–82.

13. Jeoung JW, Lee MJ, Hwang JM. Bilateral lateral rectus recession versus unilateral recess-resect procedure for exotropia with a dominant eye. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 141:683–8.

14. Samarawickrama C, Wang JJ, Huynh SC, et al. Macular thickness, retinal thickness, and optic disk parameters in dominant compared with nondominant eyes. J AAPOS. 2009; 13:142–7.

15. Cheng CY, Yen MY, Lin HY, et al. Association of ocular dominance and anisometropic myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45:2856–60.

16. Lee MS, Cho KJ, Cho WH, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and optic disc parameters in dominant compared with non-dominant eyes. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2013; 54:784–8.

17. Choi JA, Kim JS, Park HY, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness profiles associated with ocular laterality and dominance. Neurosci Lett. 2014; 558:197–202.

18. Chia A, Jaurigue A, Gazzard G, et al. Ocular dominance, laterality, and refraction in Singaporean children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48:3533–6.

19. Pekel G, Alagöz N, Pekel E, et al. Effects of ocular dominance on contrast sensitivity in middle-aged people. ISRN Ophthalmol. 2014; 2014:903084.

20. Cho KJ, Kim SY, Yang SW. The refractive errors of dominant and non-dominant eyes. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:275–9.

21. Lopes-Ferreira D, Neves H, Queiros A, et al. Ocular dominance and visual function testing. Biomed Res Int. 2013; 2013:238943.

22. Gur RC, Turetsky BI, Matsui M, et al. Sex differences in brain gray and white matter in healthy young adults: correlations with cognitive performance. J Neurosci. 1999; 19:4065–72.

23. Hiscock M, Israelian M, Inch R, et al. Is there a sex difference in human laterality? II. An exhaustive survey of visual laterality studies from six neuropsychology journals. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1995; 17:590–610.

24. Carpineto P, Ciancaglini M, Zuppardi E, et al. Reliability of nerve fiber layer thickness measurements using optical coherence tomography in normal and glaucomatous eyes. Ophthalmology. 2003; 110:190–5.

25. Schuman JS, Pedut-Kloizman T, Pakter H, et al. Optical coherence tomography and histologic measurements of nerve fiber layer thickness in normal and glaucomatous monkey eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48:3645–54.

26. Blumenthal EZ, Parikh RS, Pe'er J, et al. Retinal nerve fibre layer imaging compared with histological measurements in a human eye. Eye (Lond). 2009; 23:171–5.

27. Sung MS, Yoon JH, Park SW. Diagnostic Validity of Macular Ganglion Cell-Inner Plexiform Layer Thickness Deviation Map Algorithm Using Cirrus HD-OCT in Preperimetric and Early Glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2014; 23:e144–51.

28. Firat PG, Ozsoy E, Demirel S, et al. Evaluation of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer, macula and ganglion cell thickness in amblyopia using spectral optical coherence tomography. Int J Ophthalmol. 2013; 6:90–4.

29. Park KA, Park DY, Oh SY. Analysis of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography measurements in amblyopia: a pilot study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011; 95:1700–6.

30. Kim YW, Kim SJ, Yu YS. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography analysis in deprivational amblyopia: a pilot study with unilateral pediatric cataract patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013; 251:2811–9.

31. Tugcu B, Araz-Ersan B, Kilic M, et al. The morpho-functional evaluation of retina in amblyopia. Curr Eye Res. 2013; 38:802–9.

Table 1.

Sex distribution and mean age differences by ocular dominance (n = 200 subjects, male = 123 subjects, female = 77 subjects)

	Ocular dominance		p-value
	Right eye (n)	Left eye (n)	p-value
Total
Male	78.0% (96)	22.0% (27)	0.724
Female	80.5% (62)	19.5% (15)
Age (years)	29.09	28.26	0.125

Table 2.

Mean refractions and axial lengths in dominant and non-dominant eyes (n = 400 eyes)

	Total (n = 400)	Dominant eye (n = 200)	Non-dominant eye (n = 200)	p-value
Refraction (D) ± SD
Sph	−2.31 ± 2.49	−2.33 ± 2.51	−2.29 ± 2.48	0.441
Cyl	−0.78 ± 0.77	−0.77 ± 0.72	−0.81 ± 0.86	0.354
ME	−2.54 ± 2.50	−2.52 ± 2.47	−2.56 ± 2.54	0.554
Axial length (mm)	24.09 ± 1.18	24.09 ± 1.19	24.08 ± 1.17	0.694

D = diopter; SD = standard deviation; Sph = spherical refraction; Cyl = cylindrical refraction; ME = mean equivalent.

Table 3.

Optical coherence tomography parameters of dominant and non-dominant eyes (n = 400 eyes)

	Total(n = 400)	Dominant eye(n = 200)	Non-dominant eye(n = 200)	p-value
PRNFL thickness (um)
Inferior Q	120.07 ± 21.69	120.11 ± 15.45	120.02 ± 26.54	0.962
Superior Q	118.93 ± 16.04	117.18 ± 15.67	120.68 ± 16.24	<0.001
Nasal Q	79.85 ± 16.79	81.74 ± 17.03	77.96 ± 16.36	<0.001
Temporal Q	62.59 ± 11.89	63.15 ± 12.16	62.04 ± 11.62	0.206
Average	95.21 ± 8.04	95.46 ± 8.09	94.97 ± 8.01	0.175
Macular thickness (um)
CST	254.51 ± 19.69	254.89 ± 19.81	254.12 ± 19.61	0.265
CAT	277.30 ± 18.52	277.27 ± 18.18	277.33 ± 18.90	0.922
MGCL thickness (um)
Average	81.03 ± 7.06	81.21 ± 5.67	80.78 ± 8.17	0.453
Minimum	77.06 ± 12.15	77.62 ± 10.87	76.71 ± 12.70	0.473
S	83.00 ± 5.33	83.05 ± 5.31	82.94 ± 5.37	0.785
SN	84.11 ± 5.36	84.02 ± 5.60	84.21 ± 5.14	0.556
ST	81.96 ± 4.95	82.10 ± 5.14	81.82 ± 4.77	0.385
I	78.73 ± 5.98	78.73 ± 6.01	78.72 ± 5.98	0.983
IN	81.62 ± 5.55	81.62 ± 5.66	81.62 ± 5.46	1.000
IT	81.89 ± 5.07	81.86 ± 5.23	81.91 ± 4.92	0.865

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

PRNFL = peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer; MGCL = macular ganglion cell layer; Q = quadrant; CST = central subfield thickness; CAT = cube average thickness; S = superior; SN = superior nasal; ST = superior temporal; I = inferior; IN = inferior nasal; IT = inferior temporal.

TOOLS

Similar articles