Treatment with Bangerter filters

Agervi, Pia

doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2011.02.003

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…35,47 Therefore, other more rudimentary measures of binocular function that occur before disparity encoding, such as binocular summation of contrast or global measures of suppression, still may reflect an advantage of Bangerter filters. The finding that partial occlusion with Bangerter filters can improve motor fusion in patients with strabismic amblyopia is consistent with the idea that the filters can promote a rudimentary degree of binocular function 48 (however, comments from Agervi 49 ). This effect also may underlie the accelerated improvement in visual acuity that occurs when Bangerter filters are combined with spectacle correction relative to spectacle correction alone.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

The Effect of Bangerter Filters on Binocular Function in Observers With Amblyopia

Chen¹,

Li²,

Thompson³

et al. 2014

Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

The Effect of Bangerter Filters on Binocular Function in Observers With Amblyopia

Chen¹,

Li²,

Thompson³

et al. 2014

Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bangerter filters are translucent light diffusers that can be attached to spectacles and are capable of causing degradation in vision because of the resultant attenuation of higher spatial frequencies ( Pérez et al, 2010 ). Although these filters can reduce the VA in steps on 0.1 logMAR in healthy eyes ( Odell et al, 2008 ; Agervi, 2011 ; Rutstein et al, 2011 ), an intended degradation of >1.0 logMAR of VA cannot be obtained even by the manufacturer’s recommendation. Since our participants required VA reduction of up to 1.3 logMAR, we used a combination of filters to achieve VA reductions beyond 1.0 logMAR.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If a sensitive period exists for the development of a specific function, once VA is controlled for, the CC group, but not the DC group is expected to show impaired performance. The normally sighted age matched controls were tested with full sight and with the VA matched using specialized translucent filters called Bangerter filters, which have been regularly used in amblyopia therapy ( Agervi, 2011 ). All participants were tested in two tasks of the BMLtest battery ( Saunders and Troje, 2011 ): (1) an action identification task, in which subjects had to name the action performed by an actor shown as stick figures; (2) a coherent motion (CM) detection task, in which participants judged the direction of the CM of dots among a set of randomly moving dots (CM task).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological Action Identification Does Not Require Early Visual Input for Development

Rajendran

Bottari

Shareef

et al. 2020

eNeuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual input during the first years of life is vital for the development of numerous visual functions. While normal development of global motion perception seems to require visual input during an early sensitive period, the detection of biological motion (BM) does not seem to do so. A more complex form of BM processing is the identification of human actions. Here, we tested whether identification rather than detection of BM is experience dependent. A group of human participants who had been treated for congenital cataracts (CC; of up to 18 years in duration, CC group) had to identify ten actions performed by human line figures. In addition, they performed a coherent motion (CM) detection task, which required identifying the direction of CM amid the movement of random dots. As controls, developmental cataract (DC) reversal individuals (DC group) who had undergone the same surgical treatment as CC group were included. Moreover, normally sighted controls were tested both with vision blurred to match the visual acuity (VA) of CC individuals [vision matched (VM) group] and with full sight [sighted control (SC) group]. The CC group identified biological actions with an extraordinary high accuracy (on average ∼85% correct) and was indistinguishable from the VM control group. By contrast, CM processing impairments of the CC group persisted even after controlling for VA. These results in the same individuals demonstrate an impressive resilience of BM processing to aberrant early visual experience and at the same time a sensitive period for the development of CM processing.

show abstract

“…Previous studies quantified suppression and modulated the contrast, 6 , 31 − 33 motion coherence, 31 , 34 − 36 and optical blur 31 , 34 , 37 , 38 in the dominant eye. In the present study suppression is quantified by modulating the target size.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying Suppression in Anisometropic Amblyopia With VTS4 (Vision Therapy System 4)

Sehgal

Satgunam

2020

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual acuity (VA) of the amblyopic eye is usually considered for monitoring improvement with therapy. However, participation of the amblyopic eye under binocular viewing conditions is also important. This study investigated the use of a clinically available tool VTS4 (Vision Therapy System 4) to quantify the participation or suppression of the amblyopic eye under binocular viewing conditions. Methods: A cross-sectional study on patients with anisometropic amblyopia was undertaken. Monocular VA was thresholded. Stereo acuity was measured with Randot stereo test. Simultaneous macular perception (SMP) targets in VTS4 were dichoptically presented. SMP target size was reduced till the amblyopic eye's target disappeared (suppression scotoma size). An average of three measurements was taken for the suppression scotoma size. Results: Twenty-eight patients participated (aged 6 to 21 years). The mean interocular VA difference was 0.50 ± 0.27 logMAR. The mean scotoma size was 8.2°± 5.4°. Mean stereo acuity was 2.06 ± 0.34 log arc seconds from 21 patients on whom stereopsis could be measured. Suppression scotoma size showed a significant (P < 0.001) positive correlation with both interocular VA difference (r = 0.59) and stereoacuity (r = 0.72). Conclusions: Participation of the amblyopic eye under binocular viewing condition can be assessed by measuring the suppression scotoma size in VTS4, even when stereoacuity is poor or not measurable. Smaller the suppression scotoma, better is the amblyopic eye's participation. Translational Relevance: VTS4 can be used in monitoring amblyopia therapy by quantifying suppression of the amblyopic eye.

show abstract

Treatment with Bangerter filters

Cited by 10 publications

References 12 publications

The Effect of Bangerter Filters on Binocular Function in Observers With Amblyopia

The Effect of Bangerter Filters on Binocular Function in Observers With Amblyopia

Biological Action Identification Does Not Require Early Visual Input for Development

Quantifying Suppression in Anisometropic Amblyopia With VTS4 (Vision Therapy System 4)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About