Lack of oblique astigmatism in the chicken eye.

Primate eyes display considerable oblique off-axis astigmatism which could provide information on the sign of defocus that is needed for emmetropization. The pattern of peripheral astigmatism is not known in the chicken eye, a common model of myopia. Peripheral astigmatism was mapped out over the horizontal visual field in three chickens, 43 days old, and in three near emmetropic human subjects, average age 34.7years, using infrared photoretinoscopy. There were no differences in astigmatism between humans and chickens in the central visual field (chicks -0.35D, humans -0.65D, n.s.) but large differences in the periphery (i.e. astigmatism at 40° in the temporal visual field: humans -4.21D, chicks -0.63D, p<0.001, unpaired t-test). The lack of peripheral astigmatism in chicks was not due to differences in corneal shape. Perhaps related to their superior peripheral optics, we found that chickens had excellent visual performance also in the far periphery. Using an automated optokinetic nystagmus paradigm, no difference was observed in spatial visual performance with vision restricted to either the central 67° of the visual field or to the periphery beyond 67°. Accommodation was elicited by stimuli presented far out in the visual field. Transscleral images of single infrared LEDs showed no sign of peripheral astigmatism. The chick may be the first terrestrial vertebrate described to lack oblique astigmatism. Since corneal shape cannot account for the difference in astigmatism in humans and chicks, it must trace back to the design of the crystalline lens. The lack of peripheral astigmatism in chicks also excludes a role in emmetropization.

Is adaptation to perceived interocular differences in height explained by vertical fusional eye movements?

PURPOSE: To find out whether adaptation to a vertical prism involves more than fusional vertical eye movements. METHODS: Adaptation to a vertical base-up 3 prism diopter prism was measured in a custom-programmed Maddox test in nine visually normal emmetropic subjects (mean age 27.0 ± 2.8 years). Vertical eye movements were binocularly measured in six of the subjects with a custom-programmed binocular video eye tracker. RESULTS: In the Maddox test, some subjects adjusted the perceived height as expected from the power of the prism while others appeared to ignore the prism. After 15 minutes of adaptation, the interocular difference in perceived height was reduced by on average 51% (from 0.86°-0.44°). The larger the initially perceived difference in height in a subject, the larger the amplitude of adaptation was. Eye tracking showed that the prism generated divergent vertical eye movements of 1.2° on average, which was less than expected from its power. Differences in eye elevation were maintained as long as the prism was in place. Small angles of lateral head tilt generated large interocular differences in eye elevation, much larger than the effects introduced by the prism. CONCLUSIONS: Vertical differences in retinal image height were compensated by vertical fusional eye movements but some subjects responded poorly to a vertical prism in both experiments; fusional eye movements were generally too small to realign both foveae with the fixation target; and the prism adaptation in the Maddox test was fully explained by the changes in vertical eye position, suggesting that no further adaptational mechanism may be involved.