Journal of Neuroscience, Vol 12, 188-203, Copyright © 1992 by Society for Neuroscience
Binocular interactions in accommodation control: effects of anisometropic stimuli
DI Flitcroft, SJ Judge and JW Morley
University Laboratory of Physiology, Oxford, United Kingdom.
In binocular viewing of real targets, the accommodative demand in the two
eyes is not in general identical, yet the accommodation response in the two
eyes is equal. In order to investigate how the accommodative signals from
the two eyes are combined, this study has examined the effects of several
forms of dynamic anisometropic stimulation on the accommodation response in
both man and the rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta). All experiments were
performed in a computer-controlled haploscopic apparatus to allow
independent control of the accommodative stimuli to the two eyes and of the
vergence stimulus. The vergence stimulus was held constant while the
accommodation demand was modulated independently in each eye. Accommodation
was monitored continuously with a dynamic infrared optometer. Four
anisometropic conditions were used. In two of these conditions,
accommodation demand was varied sinusoidally with time in both eyes, but
with phases differing by 90 degrees or 180 degrees between the two eyes. In
the two remaining conditions, accommodation demand in one eye varied
sinusoidally, while the accommodation demand was constant in the other. In
all cases, the form of the target pattern was identified in the two eyes.
The accommodation responses observed with these stimulus conditions were
similar in both man and the monkey. When presented with conflicting stimuli
in the two eyes, the accommodation response appeared to be best described
as a compromise between the inputs to the two eyes; there were no
indications of a purely random alternation of eye dominance of the form
seen in binocular contour rivalry. When the accommodation demand was
modulated in only one eye, there was a modulated accommodation response of
similar phase to the control condition (i.e., both eyes modulated in phase)
but with a much smaller gain (mean, 39% of control gain). When the
accommodation demand was modulated in both eyes with a phase difference of
180 degrees, no significant modulation was observed in the accommodation
response at the stimulation frequency. When the interocular phase
difference was 90 degrees, a modulated response was observed that showed a
mean phase lag 41 degrees more than that observed in the control condition
(both eyes modulated in phase) and an appreciably smaller gain (mean, 55%
of control gain). The extent to which the results can be described by a
linear vector average of the uniocular inputs is considered.