Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 1996
Visual stabilization of posture in persons with central visual field loss.
СтатьяПоддержка правительства СШАПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Turano K A, Dagnelie G, Herdman S J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine whether people with central visual field loss (CFL) show a smaller visual contribution to posture stabilization than people with normal vision and to determine the visual factors that predict the magnitude of visual stabilization in people with central visual field loss.
METHODS: Posture information was recorded in 19 subjects with CFL and in 20 subjects with normal vision. Data were collected as the subject stood in a dark environment and also as he or she viewed a stationary visual display. In both conditions, somatosensory feedback was concurrently altered. The central visual fields of the subjects with CFL were measured by static perimetry with the confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Binocular visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were measured on all subjects using the ETDRS and Pelli-Robson charts, respectively. Image-displacement thresholds were measured in a subset of the subjects.
RESULTS: On average, subjects with central field loss showed a smaller visual contribution to posture stabilization than subjects with normal vision. The reduction in sway caused by visual stimuli was only 29% for the subjects with CFL compared to 41% for the subjects with normal vision. Displacement thresholds accounted for 45% of the variance in the visual stabilization magnitude of the subjects with CFL. No other visual factor significantly increased the coefficient of determination.
CONCLUSIONS: The visual self-motion cues generated by small body oscillations may be undetectable and, thus, unusable as cues to postural sway by people with central field loss.
METHODS: Posture information was recorded in 19 subjects with CFL and in 20 subjects with normal vision. Data were collected as the subject stood in a dark environment and also as he or she viewed a stationary visual display. In both conditions, somatosensory feedback was concurrently altered. The central visual fields of the subjects with CFL were measured by static perimetry with the confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Binocular visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were measured on all subjects using the ETDRS and Pelli-Robson charts, respectively. Image-displacement thresholds were measured in a subset of the subjects.
RESULTS: On average, subjects with central field loss showed a smaller visual contribution to posture stabilization than subjects with normal vision. The reduction in sway caused by visual stimuli was only 29% for the subjects with CFL compared to 41% for the subjects with normal vision. Displacement thresholds accounted for 45% of the variance in the visual stabilization magnitude of the subjects with CFL. No other visual factor significantly increased the coefficient of determination.
CONCLUSIONS: The visual self-motion cues generated by small body oscillations may be undetectable and, thus, unusable as cues to postural sway by people with central field loss.