Academic Journal
Saccadic Reaction Times and Computational Modelling Reveal Heterogeneous Binocular Summation in Glaucomatous Visual Fields.
| Τίτλος: | Saccadic Reaction Times and Computational Modelling Reveal Heterogeneous Binocular Summation in Glaucomatous Visual Fields. |
|---|---|
| Συγγραφείς: | Venkat Reddy Chanakya A; Department of Neuroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.; Medical Research Foundation, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, India., Pel JJ; Department of Neuroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands., George R; Medical Research Foundation, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, India., Bremen P; Department of Neuroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. p.bremen@erasmusmc.nl. |
| Πηγή: | Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) [Ophthalmic Physiol Opt] 2026 Aug; Vol. 46 (4), pp. 821-834. Date of Electronic Publication: 2026 May 09. |
| Τύπος έκδοσης: | Journal Article |
| Γλώσσα: | English |
| Στοιχεία περιοδικού: | Publisher: Blackwell Publishers Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 8208839 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1475-1313 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 02755408 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Subsets: MEDLINE |
| Imprint Name(s): | Publication: 2002- : Oxford : Blackwell Publishers Original Publication: Oxford ; New York : Pergamon Press, c1981- |
| Ιατρικοί όροι (MeSH): | Vision, Binocular*/physiology , Visual Fields*/physiology , Reaction Time*/physiology , Saccades*/physiology , Glaucoma*/physiopathology , Computer Simulation*, Humans ; Female ; Male ; Visual Field Tests ; Middle Aged ; Aged ; Adult |
| Περίληψη: | Binocular summation enhances visual performance. This enhancement may be disrupted in visual conditions that introduce interocular asymmetries, e.g., glaucoma. Reaction times provide a direct index of visual processing efficiency. However, they have not been studied systematically under binocular conditions in glaucoma. This investigation quantified monocular and binocular saccadic reaction times (RTs) across the visual field using eye-movement perimetry (EMP), compared binocular summation between healthy and glaucoma participants and evaluated correspondence with computational models. Saccadic RTs were measured monocularly/binocularly at 54/56 visual-field locations in seven healthy participants and eight participants with glaucoma of varying severity. Each location was tested with six to ten repetitions under low (74%) and high (155%) contrast conditions. Data were analysed using reciprobit plots, estimation statistics and linear mixed-effects modelling. Binocular RTs were compared with statistical facilitation (Race model) and variance-weighted neural integration predictions. Healthy participants consistently demonstrated a binocular advantage, with RTs faster by ~20 ms relative to monocular viewing, closely matching statistical facilitation predictions. Glaucoma participants showed greater heterogeneity, ranging from preserved summation (~40 ms faster than monocular) to binocular RT being slower than the fastest monocular RT. Computational modelling indicated that most glaucoma cases were compatible with statistical facilitation, but some exhibited deviations suggestive of inhibitory interactions, monocular dominance or faster responses than predicted by statistical facilitation. Binocular RTs provide a sensitive index of visual processing and reveal heterogeneous binocular summation mechanisms in glaucoma. EMP under binocular conditions offers a promising approach for studying functional visual impairment beyond traditional monocular testing. (© 2026. The Author(s).) |
| Competing Interests: | Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Consent to Publish and Consent to Participate: Informed consent and consent to publish were obtained from all individual participants included in the study. |
| References: | Campbell FW, Green DG. Monocular versus binocular visual acuity. Nature. 1965;208:191–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/208191a0 . (PMID: 10.1038/208191a05884255) Blake R, Fox R. The psychophysical inquiry into binocular summation. Percept Psychophys. 1973;14:161–85. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198631 . (PMID: 10.3758/BF03198631) Blake R, Sloane M, Fox R. Further developments in binocular summation. Percept Psychophys. 1981;30:266–76. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03214282 . (PMID: 10.3758/bf032142827322802) Niechwiej-Szwedo E, Wu S, Giaschi D, Colpa L, Wong AMF, Christian L. Eye-hand coordination during a precision grasping and placement task in children with a history of amblyopia. Vis Res. 2025;237:108700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2025.108700 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.visres.2025.10870040972345) Blake R, Levinson E. Spatial properties of binocular neurones in the human visual system. Exp Brain Res. 1977;27:221–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00237700 . (PMID: 10.1007/BF00237700838010) Legge GE. Binocular contrast summation-I. Detection and discrimination. Vis Res. 1984;24:373–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(84)90063-4 . (PMID: 10.1016/0042-6989(84)90063-46740958) Pardhan S. A comparison of binocular summation in young and older patients. Curr Eye Res. 1996;15:315–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/02713689609007626 . (PMID: 10.3109/027136896090076268654112) Hughes HC, Townsend JT. Varieties of binocular interaction in human vision. Psychol Sci. 1998;9:53–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00010 . (PMID: 10.1111/1467-9280.00010) Meese TS, Georgeson MA, Baker DH. Binocular contrast vision at and above threshold. J Vis. 2006;6:1224–43. https://doi.org/10.1167/6.11.7 . (PMID: 10.1167/6.11.717209731) Baker DH, Lygo FA, Meese TS, Georgeson MA. Binocular summation revisited: beyond √2. Psychol Bull. 2018;144:1186–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000163 . (PMID: 10.1037/bul0000163301020586195301) Barlow HB, Blakemore C, Pettigrew JD. The neural mechanism of binocular depth discrimination. J Physiol. 1967;193:327–42. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1967.sp008360 . (PMID: 10.1113/jphysiol.1967.sp00836060658811365600) Poggio GF, Fischer B. Binocular interaction and depth sensitivity in striate and prestriate cortex of behaving rhesus monkey. J Neurophysiol. 1977;40:1392–405. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1977.40.6.1392 . (PMID: 10.1152/jn.1977.40.6.1392411898) Belluccini E, Zeater N, Pietersen ANJ, Eiber CD, Martin PR. Binocular summation in marmoset lateral geniculate nucleus. Vis Neurosci. 2019;36:E012. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952523819000099 . (PMID: 10.1017/S095252381900009931718727) Westendorf D, Blake R. Binocular reaction times to contrast increments. Vis Res. 1988;28:355–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(88)90164-2 . (PMID: 10.1016/0042-6989(88)90164-23414023) Blake R, Martens W, Di Gianfilippo A. Reaction time as a measure of binocular interaction in human vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1980;19:930–41. (PMID: 7409986) Quaia C, Optican LM, Cumming BG. Binocular summation for reflexive eye movements. J Vis. 2018;18:7. https://doi.org/10.1167/18.4.7 . (PMID: 10.1167/18.4.7296213845888722) Raab DH. Statistical facilitation of simple reaction times. Trans N Y Acad Sci. 1962;24:574–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1962.tb01433.x . (PMID: 10.1111/j.2164-0947.1962.tb01433.x14489538) Blake R, Martens W, Garrett A, Westendorf D. Estimating probability summation for binocular reaction time data. Percept Psychophys. 1980;27:375–8. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206129 . (PMID: 10.3758/bf032061297383825) Miller J. Divided attention: evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. Cogn Psychol. 1982;14:247–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90010-x . (PMID: 10.1016/0010-0285(82)90010-x7083803) Carpenter RH, Williams ML. Neural computation of log likelihood in control of saccadic eye movements. Nature. 1995;377:59–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/377059a0 . (PMID: 10.1038/377059a07659161) Noorani I, Carpenter RH. The LATER model of reaction time and decision. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;64:229–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.02.018 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.02.01826915927) Ernst MO, Banks MS. Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature. 2002;415:429–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/415429a . (PMID: 10.1038/415429a11807554) Alais D, Burr D. The ventriloquist effect results from near-optimal bimodal integration. Curr Biol. 2004;14:257–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2004.01.029 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.cub.2004.01.02914761661) Knill DC. Robust cue integration: a Bayesian model and evidence from cue-conflict studies with stereoscopic and figure cues to slant. J Vis. 2007;7:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.7.5 . (PMID: 10.1167/7.7.518254179) Pardhan S. Binocular performance in patients with unilateral cataract using the Regan test: binocular summation and inhibition with low-contrast charts. Eye (Lond). 1993;7:59–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1993.13 . (PMID: 10.1038/eye.1993.138325425) Birch EE. Amblyopia and binocular vision. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2013;33:67–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2012.11.001 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2012.11.00123201436) Issashar Leibovitzh G, Trope GE, Buys YM, Tarita-Nistor L. Binocular summation of visual acuity at high and low contrast in early glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2023;32:133–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000002106 . (PMID: 10.1097/IJG.000000000000210635980864) Ding J, Klein SA, Levi DM. Binocular combination in abnormal binocular vision. J Vis. 2013;13:14. https://doi.org/10.1167/13.2.14 . (PMID: 10.1167/13.2.14233970394521338) Bennett CR, Bex PJ, Bauer CM, Merabet LB. The assessment of visual function and functional vision. Semin Pediatr Neurol. 2019;31:30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spen.2019.05.006 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.spen.2019.05.006315480226761988) Crabb DP, Viswanathan AC, McNaught AI, Poinoosawmy D, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Simulating binocular visual field status in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82:1236–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.82.11.1236 . (PMID: 10.1136/bjo.82.11.123699243241722423) Musch DC, Niziol LM, Gillespie BW, Lichter PR, Janz NK. Binocular measures of visual acuity and visual field versus binocular approximations. Ophthalmology. 2017;124:1031–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.02.013 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.02.013284080395483206) Xiong YZ, Liu R, Kwon M, Bittner AK, Owsley C, Legge GE. A unified rule for binocular contrast summation applies to normal vision and common eye diseases. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2021;62:6. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.62.13.6 . (PMID: 10.1167/iovs.62.13.6346368778525828) Candy TR, Cormack LK. Recent understanding of binocular vision in the natural environment with clinical implications. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2022;88:101014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2021.101014 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2021.10101434624515) Shamsi F, Liu R, Kwon M. Binocularly asymmetric crowding in glaucoma and a lack of binocular summation in crowding. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2022;63:36 https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.63.1.36 . (PMID: 10.1167/iovs.63.1.36350844328802025) Jiang J, Ye C, Zhang C, Ye W, Wang X, Shang X, et al. Intraocular asymmetry of visual field defects in primary angle-closure glaucoma, high-tension glaucoma, and normal-tension glaucoma in a Chinese population. Sci Rep.2021;11:11674. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91173-8 . (PMID: 10.1038/s41598-021-91173-8340836228175365) McDonald MA, Stevenson CH, Kersten HM, Danesh-Meyer HV. Eye movement abnormalities in glaucoma patients: a review. Eye Brain. 2022;14:83–114. https://doi.org/10.2147/EB.S361946 . (PMID: 10.2147/EB.S361946361055719467299) Essock EA, Fechtner RD, Zimmerman TJ, Krebs WK, Nussdorf JD. Binocular function in early glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 1996;5:395–405. (PMID: 10.1097/00061198-199612000-000078946296) João CAR, Scanferla L, Jansonius NM. Binocular interactions in glaucoma patients with nonoverlapping visual field defects: contrast summation, rivalry, and phase combination. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2021;62:9. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.62.12.9 . (PMID: 10.1167/iovs.62.12.9345058648434749) Pel JJ, van Beijsterveld MC, Thepass G, van der Steen J. Validity and repeatability of saccadic response times across the visual field in eye movement perimetry. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2013;2:3. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.2.7.3 . (PMID: 10.1167/tvst.2.7.3243498813860353) Mazumdar D, Meethal NSK, Panday M, Asokan R, Thepass G, George RJ, et al. Effect of age, sex, stimulus intensity, and eccentricity on saccadic reaction time in eye movement perimetry. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2019;8:13. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.8.4.13 . (PMID: 10.1167/tvst.8.4.13313884656670042) Chanakya AVR, Bremen P. Optimising reaction-time analysis in eye movement perimetry using pooled promptness distributions. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2025;45:2072–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.13564 . (PMID: 10.1111/opo.135644077893712682101) Ottes FP, Van Gisbergen JA, Eggermont JJ. Visuomotor fields of the superior colliculus: a quantitative model. Vis Res. 1986;26:857–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(86)90144-6 . (PMID: 10.1016/0042-6989(86)90144-63750869) Ratcliff R. Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychol Bull. 1993;114:510–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.510 . (PMID: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.5108272468) Calin-Jageman RJ, Cumming G. Estimation for better inference in neuroscience. eNeuro. 2019;6:ENEURO.0205-19.2019. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0205-19.2019 . (PMID: 10.1523/ENEURO.0205-19.2019314533166709209) Ho J, Tumkaya T, Aryal S, Choi H, Claridge-Chang A. Moving beyond P values: data analysis with estimation graphics. Nat Methods. 2019;16:565–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0470-3 . (PMID: 10.1038/s41592-019-0470-331217592) Pardhan S, Gilchrist J, Douthwaite W, Yap M. Binocular inhibition: psychophysical and electrophysiological evidence. Optom Vis Sci. 1990;67:688–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-199009000-00006 . (PMID: 10.1097/00006324-199009000-000062234828) Lakshmanan Y, George RJ. Stereoacuity in mild, moderate and severe glaucoma. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2013;33:172–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12021 . (PMID: 10.1111/opo.1202123297812) Crabb DP. A view on glaucoma-are we seeing it clearly? Eye (Lond). 2016;30:304–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.244 . (PMID: 10.1038/eye.2015.24426611846) Owen VM, Crabb DP, White ET, Viswanathan AC, Garway-Heath DF, Hitchings RA. Glaucoma and fitness to drive: using binocular visual fields to predict a milestone to blindness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:2449–55. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.07-0877 . (PMID: 10.1167/iovs.07-087718515585) Wood JM, Black AA, Mallon K, Thomas R, Owsley C. Glaucoma and driving: on-road driving characteristics. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0158318. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158318 . (PMID: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158318274722214966939) Wakayama A, Matsumoto C, Ohmure K, Inase M, Shimomura Y. Influence of target size and eccentricity on binocular summation of reaction time in kinetic perimetry. Vis Res. 2011;51:174–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.11.002 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.11.00221078335) Billock VA, Dougherty K, Kinney MJ, Preston AM, Winterbottom MD. Multisensory-inspired modeling and neural correlates for two key binocular interactions. Sci Rep. 2024;14:11269. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60926-6 . (PMID: 10.1038/s41598-024-60926-63876041011101479) Kalesnykas RP, Hallett PE. Retinal eccentricity and the latency of eye saccades. Vis Res. 1994;34:517–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(94)90165-1 . (PMID: 10.1016/0042-6989(94)90165-18303835) Rao HL, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN, Leite MT, Sample PA, Medeiros FA. Structure–function relationship in glaucoma using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129:864–71. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.145 . (PMID: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.145217469763855237) Wu Z, Medeiros FA. A simplified combined index of structure and function for detecting and staging glaucomatous damage. Sci Rep. 2021;11:3172. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82756-6 . (PMID: 10.1038/s41598-021-82756-6335423677862440) Jiang ZY, Chen J, Yao J, Qian SH. Impact of binocular visual field loss on driving performance in glaucoma patients. Int J Ophthalmol. 2021;14:112–9. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2021.01.16 . (PMID: 10.18240/ijo.2021.01.16334694927790684) Daga FB, Boer ER, Diniz-Filho A, Elhosseiny A, Jammal AA, Tavares Ivan, et al. Hazard detection during simulated driving in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma. 2023;32:556–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000002233 . (PMID: 10.1097/IJG.000000000000223337171999) Friedman DS, Freeman E, Munoz B, Jampel HD, West SK. Glaucoma and mobility performance: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:2232–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.02.001 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.02.00117980433) Ramulu P. Glaucoma and disability: which tasks are affected, and at what stage of disease? Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20:92–98. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0b013e32832401a9 . (PMID: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e32832401a9192405412692230) Gomes HA, Moreira BS, Sampaio RF, Furtado SRC, Cronemberger S, Gomes RA, et al. Gait parameters, functional mobility and fall risk in individuals with early to moderate primary open angle glaucoma: a cross-sectional study. Braz J Phys Ther. 2018;22:376–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2018.03.004 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2018.03.004296100456157465) Haymes SA, LeBlanc RP, Nicolela MT, Chiasson LA, Chauhan BC. Glaucoma and on-road driving performance. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:3035–41. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.07-1609 . (PMID: 10.1167/iovs.07-160918326696) Black AA, Wood JM, Lovie-Kitchin JE. Inferior visual field reductions are associated with poorer functional status among older adults with glaucoma. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011;31:283–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2010.00811.x . (PMID: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2010.00811.x21410740) Crabb DP, Smith ND, Glen FC, Burton R, Garway-Heath DF. How does glaucoma look?: patient perception of visual field loss. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:1120–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.11.043 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.11.04323415421) Kasneci E, Sippel K, Aehling K, Heister M, Rosenstiel W, Schiefer U, et al. Driving with binocular visual field loss? A study on a supervised on-road parcours with simultaneous eye and head tracking. PLoS One. 2014;9:e87470. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087470 . (PMID: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087470245238693921141) Tang X, Bronstad PM, Doherty AL, Moharrer M, Peli E, Luo G, et al. Hazard detection with monocular bioptic telescopes in a driving simulator. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2020;9:26. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.9.4.26 . (PMID: 10.1167/tvst.9.4.26328181137396188) Qiu M, Wang SY, Singh K, Lin SC. Association between visual field defects and quality of life in the United States. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:733–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.09.043 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.09.04324342021) |
| Grant Information: | 2022-12 Oogfonds; 74_P.Bremen Stichting Lijf en Leven; Starting Grant Erasmus Medisch Centrum |
| Contributed Indexing: | Keywords: Binocular vision; Eye movements; Perimetry; Promptness; Statistical facilitation |
| Entry Date(s): | Date Created: 20260509 Date Completed: 20260723 Latest Revision: 20260726 |
| Update Code: | 20260726 |
| PubMed Central ID: | PMC13395838 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s44402-026-00100-9 |
| PMID: | 42105080 |
| Βάση Δεδομένων: | MEDLINE |
καταχωρήστε σχόλιο πρώτοι!