 |
 |

The Visually Evoked ResponseBinocular Facilitation and Failure When Binocular Vision Is Disturbed
Richard Srebro, MD
Arch Ophthalmol. 1978;96(5):839-844.
Abstract
The visually evoked response (VER) caused by the horizontal sinusoidal movement of a display consisting of a checkerboard with 15-minute checks of relatively low contrast oscillating at 6.3 Hz is itself sinusoidal with a frequency of 12.6 Hz. When viewed binocularly, the VER is 25% to 30% greater in amplitude than the sum of the amplitudes for monocular viewing. This binocular facilitation may be a VER correlate of normal binocular single vision. It is lost in small-angle esotropes and in normals whose binocular function is disturbed by a vertical prism placed over one eye. Characteristic curves relating VER amplitude and phase angle to frequency of oscillation of the checkerboard display suggest that two "systems" carry information to the visual cortex: a long and a short latency system. In amblyopia, the long latency system may be selectively impaired.
Author Affiliations
From the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Southwestern Medical School, Dallas.
Footnotes
Accepted for publication Oct 18, 1977.
Reprint requests to Department of Ophthalmology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, TX 75235 (Dr Srebro).
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Disparity Tuning of Binocular Facilitation and Suppression after Normal versus Abnormal Visual Development
Norcia et al.
IOVS 2009;50:1168-1175.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Visual Adaptation to Interocular Brightness Differences Induced by Neutral-Density Filters
MacMillan et al.
IOVS 2007;48:935-942.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Reduced Binocular Beat Visual Evoked Responses and Stereoacuity in Patients with Duane Syndrome
Sloper et al.
IOVS 2001;42:2826-2830.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Anomalous Retinal Correspondence: Monocular and Binocular Visual Evoked Responses
Campos
Arch Ophthalmol 1980;98:299-302.
ABSTRACT
|