This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (13)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

J. E. WINKELMAN, M.D.

AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1953;50(2):179-183.

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

IT SEEMS that Worth¹ considered fusion essentially as a mental process and made no distinction between the motor part of the fusion (the fusional movements) and the mental process of uniting two uniocular impressions into one single impression. This distinction was clearly indicated by Roelofs,² who also pointed out that binocular vision and fusion are different words to designate the same thing. Binocular vision is fusion, and this fusion should be differentiated into motor fusion (fusional movements) and sensory fusion, or the process of uniting the two retinal images into a unitary perception. The same distinction between motor and sensory fusion was recently stressed by Burian.³ The work of Chavasse⁴ has largely contributed to the present concept of binocular vision and fusion as reflexes, or, rather, as conditioned reflexes. This concept has been elaborated most completely along ontogenetic lines by Zeeman.⁵

When we apply this . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS

From the Eye Clinic of the University of Amsterdam; Dr. A. Hagedoorn, Director.

Footnotes
This work has been supported by a grant from the Jan Dekker Stichting.

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