Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 24, 2026

Assessing Binocular Central Visual Field and Binocular Eye Movements in a Dichoptic Viewing Condition
07:45

Assessing Binocular Central Visual Field and Binocular Eye Movements in a Dichoptic Viewing Condition

Published on: July 21, 2020

A comparative analysis of monocular excursion measures.

Sahira Hanif1, Fiona Rowe, Anna O'Connor

  • 1Department of Ophthalmology and Orthoptics, North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Warrington, England, UK. sahira4ever@hotmail.com

Strabismus
|March 21, 2009
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The dynamics of fraction processing in preadolescents and adults: Evidence from reaching behavior.

Developmental psychology·2026
Same author

Genome sequence of the yeast <i>Candida sake</i> UCD2293, isolated from soil in Ireland.

Microbiology resource announcements·2026
Same author

Are amblyopia therapy outcomes related to socioeconomic situation for children in Greater Manchester?

Eye (London, England)·2026
Same author

Tracking microstructural adaptations in primary visual areas: A diffusion kurtosis imaging study on visuomotor learning.

NeuroImage·2025
Same author

Variation in the degradation of stereoacuity via monocular blur across multiple stereotests.

Strabismus·2025
Same author

Multimodal MRI analysis of microstructural and functional connectivity brain changes following systematic audio-visual training in a virtual environment.

NeuroImage·2024
Same journal

Motor and sensory outcomes after botulinum toxin A injection versus unilateral medial rectus recession in small-to-moderate angle esotropia.

Strabismus·2026
Same journal

Bimedial rectus recession versus botulinum toxin injection for the treatment of infantile esotropia.

Strabismus·2026
Same journal

Worsening abducens paresis and chronic orbital venous congestion after carotid-cavernous fistula embolization: long-term motility outcomes.

Strabismus·2026
Same journal

Strabismus following Endonasal sinus surgery: a 10-year retrospective analysis of clinical profile and outcomes.

Strabismus·2026
Same journal

Correction.

Strabismus·2026
Same journal

Surgical management of iatrogenic medial rectus transection following functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a report of two cases.

Strabismus·2026
See all related articles

Measurements of eye movements vary significantly between the Aimark Perimeter, Synoptophore, and Modified Goldman Perimeter. Understanding these differences is crucial for accurate clinical assessment of ocular motility.

Area of Science:

  • Ophthalmology
  • Optometry
  • Vision Science

Background:

  • Accurate measurement of monocular excursions is vital for diagnosing and managing various ocular motility disorders.
  • Several instruments exist for assessing the range of eye movements, including the Aimark Perimeter, Synoptophore, and Modified Goldman Perimeter.
  • However, the comparative performance and inter-test relationships of these methods are not well-established.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To prospectively compare the extent of monocular excursions measured by the Aimark Perimeter, Synoptophore, and Modified Goldman Perimeter.
  • To analyze the relationship and quantify the agreement between these three distinct methods for assessing eye movement range.

Main Methods:

  • A prospective, cross-sectional study involving 114 patients (64 with abnormal eye movements, 50 controls).

More Related Videos

Quantification of Oculomotor Responses and Accommodation Through Instrumentation and Analysis Toolboxes
08:27

Quantification of Oculomotor Responses and Accommodation Through Instrumentation and Analysis Toolboxes

Published on: March 3, 2023

Binocular Dynamic Visual Acuity in Eyeglass-Corrected Myopic Patients
07:06

Binocular Dynamic Visual Acuity in Eyeglass-Corrected Myopic Patients

Published on: March 29, 2022

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 24, 2026

Assessing Binocular Central Visual Field and Binocular Eye Movements in a Dichoptic Viewing Condition
07:45

Assessing Binocular Central Visual Field and Binocular Eye Movements in a Dichoptic Viewing Condition

Published on: July 21, 2020

Quantification of Oculomotor Responses and Accommodation Through Instrumentation and Analysis Toolboxes
08:27

Quantification of Oculomotor Responses and Accommodation Through Instrumentation and Analysis Toolboxes

Published on: March 3, 2023

Binocular Dynamic Visual Acuity in Eyeglass-Corrected Myopic Patients
07:06

Binocular Dynamic Visual Acuity in Eyeglass-Corrected Myopic Patients

Published on: March 29, 2022

  • Monocular excursions were measured in 8 axes (Goldman, Synoptophore) or 12 axes (Aimark) for each eye.
  • Data were analyzed using Bland-Altman analysis to assess agreement and bias between the measurement techniques.

    • Main Results:

    • Significant differences in mean rotation measurements were observed: Aimark (50.6° ± 12.4°), Goldman (40.6° ± 9.14°), and Synoptophore (24.6° ± 5.78°).
    • Bland-Altman analysis revealed substantial bias, particularly between the Synoptophore and Aimark, with bias inversely related to rotation magnitude.
    • No significant difference in the time taken per axis was found across the three methods (p = 0.50).

    Conclusions:

    • There is considerable variability in the measurement of monocular excursions among the Aimark Perimeter, Synoptophore, and Modified Goldman Perimeter.
    • The observed differences in measurement extent highlight the need for careful consideration when interpreting results from different devices.
    • The time taken for assessment did not differ significantly, suggesting that variations in results are due to measurement methodology rather than testing duration.