Effects of induced aniseikonia on binocular visual acuity

ABSTRACT

Clinical relevance

Binocular visual acuity is an important index of functional performance. Optometrists need to know how binocular visual acuity is affected by aniseikonia, and whether reduced binocular visual acuity is a marker for aniseikonia.

Background

Aniseikonia, the perception of unequal image sizes between the eyes, can occur spontaneously or can be induced after different types of eye surgery, or trauma. It is known to affect binocular vision, but there are no prior studies about how it affects visual acuity.

Methods

Visual acuity was measured for 10 healthy well-corrected participants aged 18–21 years of age. Aniseikonia of up to 20% was induced in one of two ways: (1) size lenses, which provided minification of field of view in one eye of each participant and (2) polaroid filters, which allowed vectographic viewing of optotypes on a 3D computer monitor. The best corrected acuity was measured on conventional logarithmic progression format vision charts and isolated optotypes, under both induced aniseikonia conditions.

Results

Induced aniseikonia caused binocular visual acuity thresholds to increase by small but statistically significant amounts, with the largest deficit being 0.06 logMAR for 20% size differences between the eyes. Binocular visual acuity was worse than monocular visual acuity for aniseikonia of 9% and greater. Acuity measured with the vectographic presentation gave slightly higher thresholds (by 0.01 logMAR) than for those viewed with size lenses. Acuity measured with charts gave slightly higher thresholds (by 0.02 logMAR) than with isolated letters.

Conclusion

An acuity change of 0.06 logMAR is small and may be missed in a clinical examination. Therefore, visual acuity cannot be used as a marker of aniseikonia in clinical settings. Even with very marked induced aniseikonia, binocular visual acuity remained well within standards for licen*c*sing of drivers.

KEYWORDS:

• Aniseikonia
• size lenses
• visual acuity

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).