Abstract
In binocular viewing of real targets, the accommodative demand in the two eyes is not in general identical, yet the accommodation response in the two eyes is equal. In order to investigate how the accommodative signals from the two eyes are combined, this study has examined the effects of several forms of dynamic anisometropic stimulation on the accommodation response in both man and the rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta). All experiments were performed in a computer-controlled haploscopic apparatus to allow independent control of the accommodative stimuli to the two eyes and of the vergence stimulus. The vergence stimulus was held constant while the accommodation demand was modulated independently in each eye. Accommodation was monitored continuously with a dynamic infrared optometer. Four anisometropic conditions were used. In two of these conditions, accommodation demand was varied sinusoidally with time in both eyes, but with phases differing by 90 degrees or 180 degrees between the two eyes. In the two remaining conditions, accommodation demand in one eye varied sinusoidally, while the accommodation demand was constant in the other. In all cases, the form of the target pattern was identified in the two eyes. The accommodation responses observed with these stimulus conditions were similar in both man and the monkey. When presented with conflicting stimuli in the two eyes, the accommodation response appeared to be best described as a compromise between the inputs to the two eyes; there were no indications of a purely random alternation of eye dominance of the form seen in binocular contour rivalry. When the accommodation demand was modulated in only one eye, there was a modulated accommodation response of similar phase to the control condition (i.e., both eyes modulated in phase) but with a much smaller gain (mean, 39% of control gain). When the accommodation demand was modulated in both eyes with a phase difference of 180 degrees, no significant modulation was observed in the accommodation response at the stimulation frequency. When the interocular phase difference was 90 degrees, a modulated response was observed that showed a mean phase lag 41 degrees more than that observed in the control condition (both eyes modulated in phase) and an appreciably smaller gain (mean, 55% of control gain). The extent to which the results can be described by a linear vector average of the uniocular inputs is considered.