This Article  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Francis Heed Adler, M.D.
Philadelphia

Arch Ophthal. 1948;39(1):98.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor:

—Dr. Linksz is quite correct in stating that we have tabulated 80 per cent of the patients who did not have normal correspondence but who had suppression under the heading of "anomalous correspondence." We are in agreement with Dr. Linksz that this is an unfortunate term to use for this group, but no better one has been agreed on and the subject is still extremely controversial. Lancaster, Harms, Travers and Burian all classify this group of patients with those in whom anomalous correspondence can be proved with the major amblyoscope. Swan, Linksz and others object to the definition of "anomalous correspondence" as a condition in which the fovea of one retina and an eccentric element of the other acquire a common visual direction, since such a functional relation can be demonstrated in so few patients with anomalous retinal correspondence.

In the 80 per cent of patients with suppression, there is . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?