论文部分内容阅读
目的研究斜视性弱视双眼视差信息缺损状态,探讨斜视性弱视发生的神经机制。方法对30例5～22岁的斜视性弱视患者,30例4～21岁的屈光参差性弱视患者和30例6～30岁视力正常对照组进行多维空间感知觉检查,检查的视差信息包括知觉任务图像的状态、阶度、交叉与非交叉视差信息。比较斜视性弱视与屈光参差性弱视的双眼视差信息缺损状态和程度。结果斜视性弱视组各种双眼视差信息之间正确率的比较,受试者随机点动态视差的正确率大于随机点静态视差的正确率(67.62%>57.04%),其中动态零阶大于静态零阶(80.00%>55.00%),动态一阶大于静态一阶(65.00%>57.78%),动态二阶大于静态二阶(66.11%>58.33%),差异有显著统计学意义。斜视性弱视组、屈光参差性弱视组与正常组双眼视差参数信息正确率比较,包括静态零阶、动态零阶、静态一阶、动态一阶、静态二阶与动态二阶,均是正常组>屈光参差性弱视组>斜视性弱视组,且差异有显著统计学意义。结论斜视性弱视组零阶、一阶、二阶视差立体视缺损比屈光参差性弱视的更加严重,静态视差立体视的缺损较动态的更加严重,斜视性弱视立体视的重建需要更长的时间。零阶视差选择性、一阶视差选择性、二阶视差选择性在大脑中的加工部位是不同的。动态立体图比静态的更加能诱发受试者的立体知觉。
Objective To study the status of binocular disparity information in strabismic amblyopia and to explore the neural mechanism of strabismic amblyopia. Methods Thirty patients with strabismic amblyopia aged 5-22 years, 30 cases of anisometropic amblyopia aged 4-21 years old and 30 normal vision control group of 6-30 years old were examined by multi-dimensional spatial perception. The inspection included disparity information including Perception Tasks Image states, gradations, crossover and non-intersecting disparity information. To compare the status and extent of binocular disparity information in strabismic amblyopia and anisometropic amblyopia. Results Compared with the correct rate of binocular disparity information in strabismic amblyopia group, the correct rate of dynamic disparity of random point was higher than that of random point static disparity (67.62%> 57.04%), and the dynamic zero order was greater than static zero (80.00%> 55.00%). The dynamic first order is larger than the static first order (65.00%> 57.78%), the dynamic second order is larger than the static second order (66.11%> 58.33%), and the difference is statistically significant. Strabismic amblyopia group, anisometropic amblyopia group and normal group binocular disparity parameter information accuracy rate, including static zero order, dynamic zero order, static first order, dynamic first order, static second order and dynamic second order, are normal Group> anisometropic amblyopia group> strabismic amblyopia group, and the difference was statistically significant. Conclusions Strabismus amblyopia group is more severe than anisometropic amblyopia in 0th order, 1st order and 2nd order disparity. Stereoscopic parallax is more serious than static anisotropy. Strabismus amblyopia requires longer time. Zero-order parallax selectivity, first-order parallax selectivity, second-order parallax selectivity in the brain processing parts are different. Dynamic stereograms are more capable of inducing stereopsis than static subjects.