Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.60(5) > 1122598

Lee, Kim, and Lyu: Relationship between Dominant Eye and Refractive Error in Myopic Anisometropia



To investigate the relationship between dominant eye and refractive error in patients with myopic anisometropia.


This study population consisted of myopes less than 15 years old who were followed up for anisometropia defined as interocular difference of spherical equivalent (SE) ≥1.0 diopter (D). All patients underwent the hole-in-the-card test at far and near to determine ocular dominance. The data were analyzed for statistical significance using Fisher's exact test.


A total of 102 eyes in 51 patients were analyzed. The mean age of the patients was 10.4 ± 1.4 years and 54.9% were male. The mean SE was −2.97 ± 1.95 D in the right eye and −3.02 ± 1.92 D in the left eye. The right eye was the dominant eye in 43.1% and 37.3% at distance and near, respectively. The agreement of dominancy between distant and near was 82.4%. The near dominant eyes showed statistically significant accordance with more myopic eyes (p = 0.009). On the other hand, there was no statistically significant relationship between more myopic eyes and distant dominant eyes (p = 0.09).


The near dominant eye was more myopic eye in patients with myopic anisometropia. This was considered to be related with the lag of accommodation in dominant eye with near distance.

Figures and Tables

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of children with anisometropic myopia (n = 51)


Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation or number unless otherwise indicated.

Table 2

Relationship between dominant eye and more myopic eye


Values are presented as number (%).

*Fisher's exact test.


Conflicts of Interest The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT (2017R1C1B5017079).


1. Tarczy-Hornoch K, Varma R, Cotter SA, et al. Risk factors for decreased visual acuity in preschool children: the multi-ethnic pediatric eye disease and Baltimore pediatric eye disease studies. Ophthalmology. 2011; 118:2262–2273.
2. Afsari S, Rose KA, Gole GA, et al. Prevalence of anisometropia and its association with refractive error and amblyopia in preschool children. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013; 97:1095–1099.
3. de Vries J. Anisometropia in children: analysis of a hospital population. Br J Ophthalmol. 1985; 69:504–507.
4. Ingram RM, Traynar MJ, Walker C, Wilson JM. Screening for refractive errors at age 1 year: a pilot study. Br J Ophthalmol. 1979; 63:243–250.
5. Abrahamsson M, Sjostrand J. Natural history of infantile anisometropia. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996; 80:860–863.
6. Oguz H, Oguz V. The effects of experimentally induced anisometropia on stereopsis. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2000; 37:214–218.
7. Kim JH, Kim CR, Yoo JM. Myopia progression of full correction and undercorrection with myopic anisometropia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2018; 59:164–168.
8. Fink WH. The dominant eye: its clinical significance. Arch Ophthalmol. 1938; 19:555–582.
9. Porac C, Coren S. The dominant eye. Psychol Bull. 1976; 83:880–897.
10. Mapp AP, Ono H, Barbeito R. What does the dominant eye dominate? A brief and somewhat contentious review. Percept Psychophys. 2003; 65:310–317.
11. Lin SY, White GE. Mandibular position and head posture as a function of eye dominance. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1996; 20:133–140.
12. Coren S, Duckman RH. Ocular dominance and amblyopia. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1975; 52:47–50.
13. Kawata H, Ohtsuka K. Dynamic asymmetries in convergence eye movements under natural viewing conditions. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2001; 45:437–444.
14. Saw SM, Katz J, Schein OD, et al. Epidemiology of myopia. Epidemiol Rev. 1996; 18:175–187.
15. Chen JC, Schmid KL, Brown B. The autonomic control of accommodation and implications for human myopia development: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2003; 23:401–422.
16. Goss DA, Wickham MG. Retinal-image mediated ocular growth as a mechanism for juvenile onset myopia and for emmetropization. A literature review. Doc Ophthalmol. 1995; 90:341–375.
17. Gwiazda J, Thorn F, Bauer J, Held R. Myopic children show insufficient accommodative response to blur. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993; 34:690–694.
18. Ibi K. Characteristics of dynamic accommodation responses: comparison between the dominant and non-dominant eyes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1997; 17:44–54.
19. Cheng CY, Yen MY, Lin HY, et al. Association of ocular dominance and anisometropic myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45:2856–2860.
20. Jiang F, Chen Z, Bi H, et al. Association between ocular sensory dominance and refractive error asymmetry. PLoS One. 2015; 10:e0136222.
21. Ito M, Shimizu K, Kawamorita T, et al. Association between ocular dominance and refractive asymmetry. J Refract Surg. 2013; 29:716–720.
22. Linke SJ, Baviera J, Munzer G, et al. Association between ocular dominance and spherical/astigmatic anisometropia, age, and sex: analysis of 10,264 myopic individuals. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011; 52:9166–9173.
23. Linke SJ, Baviera J, Richard G, Katz T. Association between ocular dominance and spherical/astigmatic anisometropia, age, and sex: analysis of 1274 hyperopic individuals. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53:5362–5369.
24. Chia A, Jaurigue A, Gazzard G, et al. Ocular dominance, laterality, and refraction in Singaporean children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48:3533–3536.
25. Yang Z, Lan W, Liu W, et al. Association of ocular dominance and myopia development: a 2-year longitudinal study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008; 49:4779–4783.
26. Cho KJ, Kim SY, Yang SW. The refractive errors of dominant and non-dominant eyes. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:275–279.
27. Brackenridge CJ. The contribution of genetic factors to ocular dominance. Behav Genet. 1982; 12:319–325.
Similar articles