J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2013 May;54(5):784-788. 10.3341/jkos.2013.54.5.784.

Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness and Optic Disc Parameters in Dominant Compared with Non-Dominant Eyes

• Lee MS
• Cho KJ
• Cho WH
• Kyung SE
• Chang MH

• KMID: 2217046
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2013.54.5.784

Abstract

PURPOSE
To investigate the comparison of retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness and optic disc parameters measured by optical coherence tomography (Cirrus HD-OCT(R)) in dominant and non-dominant eyes.
METHODS
Seventy-one subjects without underlying ocular disease were recruited for the present study. Ocular dominance was determined using the hole-in-the-card test. Comprehensive standardized eye examinations were performed. Scans of the optic disc and RNFL were performed using OCT.
RESULTS
The mean intraocular pressure (IOP) of the dominant eye was higher than its counterpart (p = 0.025). No significant differences were observed in uncorrected visual acuity, refractive error and axial length between dominant and non-dominant eyes (p = 0.235, 0.180, 0.850). No RNFL and optic disc features were identified in the dominant from non-dominant eyes.
CONCLUSIONS
Although dominant eyes tended to have higher IOP than non-dominant eyes, no consistent ocular structural differences between dominant and non-dominant eyes with the use of OCT were found.

Keyword

Dominant eye; Non-dominant eye; OCT; Ocular dominance; RNFL

MeSH Terms

Dominance, Ocular
Eye
Intraocular Pressure
Nerve Fibers
Refractive Errors
Retinaldehyde
Tomography, Optical Coherence
Visual Acuity
Retinaldehyde

Reference

References

1. Porac C, Coren S. The dominant eye. Psychol Bull. 1976; 83:880–97.

2. Mapp AP, Ono H, Barbeito R. What does the dominant eye domi-nate? A brief and somewhat contentious review. Percept Psychophys. 2003; 65:310–7.

3. Waheed K, Laidlaw DA. Disease laterality, eye dominance, and visual handicap in patients with unilateral full thickness macular holes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003; 87:626–8.

4. Jain S, Arora I, Azar DT. Success of monovision in presbyopes: Review of the literature and potential applications to refractive surgery. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996; 40:491–9.

5. Wright KW, Guemes A, Kapadia MS, Wilson SE. Binocular func-tion and patient satisfaction after monovision induced by myopic photorefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999; 25:177–82.

6. Back A, Grant T, Hine N. Comparative visual performance of three presbyopic contact lens corrections. Optom Vis Sci. 1992; 69:474–80.

7. Koo BS, Cho YA. The relationship of dominant eye, dominant hand, and deviated eye in strabismus. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1996; 37:1277–82.

8. Asakawa K, Ishikawa H, Kawamorita T, et al. Effects of ocular dominance and visual input on body. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2007; 51:375–8.

9. Duke-Elder WS. The physiology of the eye and of vision: System of ophthalmology. St Louis: CV Mosby;1968. v. 4:p. p 687.

10. Choi JS, Ko CJ. A study on dominant eye. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1983; 24:459–62.

11. Fink WH. The dominant eye: its clinical significance. Arch Ophthalmol. 1938; 19:555–82.

12. Cheng CY, Yen MY, Lin HY, et al. Association of ocular domi-nance and anisometropic myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45:2856–60.

13. Rice ML, Leske DA, Smestad CE, Holmes JM. Results of ocular dominance testing depend on assessment method. J AAPOS. 2008; 12:365–9.

14. Samarawickrama C, Wang JJ, Huynh SC, et al. Macular thickness, retinal thickness, and optic disk parameters in dominant compared with nondominant eyes. J AAPOS. 2009; 13:142–7.

15. Chia A, Jaurigue A, Gazzard G, et al. Ocular dominance, laterality, and refraction in Singaporean children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48:3533–6.

16. Ehrenstein WH, Arnold-Schulz-Gahmen BE, Jaschinski W. Eye preference within the context of binocular functions. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005; 243:926–32.

17. Cho KJ, Kim SY, Yang SW. The refractive errors of dominant and non-dominant eyes. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:275–9.

18. Gur RC, Turetsky BI, Matsui M, et al. Sex differences in brain gray and white matter in healthy young adults: correlations with cogni-tive performance. J Neurosci. 1999; 19:4065–72.

19. Hiscock M, Israelian M, Inch R, et al. Is there a sex difference in human laterality. An exhaustive survey of visual laterality studies from six neuropsychology journals. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1995; 17:590–610.

20. Geschwind DH, Miller BL, DeCarli C, Carmelli D. Heritability of lobar brain volumes in twins supports genetic models of cerebral laterality and handedness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002; 99:3176–81.

21. Greaves DP, Perkins ES. Influence of the sympathetic nervous sys-tem on the intra-ocular pressure and vascular circulation of the eye. Br J Ophthalmol. 1952; 36:258–64.

22. Langham ME, Rosenthal AR. Role of the cervical sympathetic nerve in regulating intraocular pressure and circulation. Am J Physiol. 1966; 210:786–94.

23. Savini G, Zanini M, Carelli V, et al. Correlation between retinal nerve fibre layer thickness and optic nerve head size: an optical co-herence tomography study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005; 89:489–92.

24. Ha DW, Sung K, Kim S, et al. Interocular comparison of nerve fi-ber layer thickness and its relation with optic disc size in normal subjects. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2002; 16:8–12.

25. Repka MX, Goldenberg-Cohen N, Edwards AR. Retinal nerve fi-ber layer thickness in amblyopic eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 142:247–51.

26. Yoon SW, Park WH, Baek SH, Kong SM. Thicknesses of macular retinal layer and peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer in patients with hyperopic anisometropic amblyopia. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2005; 19:62–7.

27. Yen MY, Cheng CY, Wang AG. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in unilateral amblyopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45:2224–30.