Outcome-of-New-Computer Based-Binocular

05/09/2019 by Bynocs0

Outcome of New Computer Based Binocular Vision Therapy in Residual Amblyopia – A Pilot Study

Kothari Mihir1,2,3*, Vivek Rathod2, Abdal Oli Ullah3 and Lad Shruti3

1Krishna Eye Center, Parel, India

2Jyotirmay Eye Clinic and Ocular Motility Laboratory, Thane, India

3Mahatme Eye Hospital, Nagpur, India

 *Corresponding Author: Kothari Mihir, Ophthalmologist/ Eye Surgeon, Krishna Eye Center, Parel, India.

Received: May 16, 2017; Published: June 23, 2017


Aim: To assess the efficacy of dichoptic therapy in the management of residual amblyopia.

Methods: In this prospective cohort study, children aged ≥ 6 years or adults with isoametropic (inter eye acuity difference of ≥ 2 lines), anisometropic or strabismic residual amblyopia were treated with 6 hours/week of office therapy (group 1) and 2 hours/day patching or 5 hours/week of home therapy (group 2) sans patching were evaluated after 6 weeks of therapy.

Results: In the office therapy group; 16 eyes of 11 children were included. 5 had bilateral (one eye more affected) and 6 had unilat- eral (anisometropic/strabismic/mixed) amblyopia. Mean age was 12.5 years. Mean improvement in bilateral amblyopia (n = 10) was 0.26, p < 0.01 (paired t test) and in unilateral amblyopia (n = 5) it was 0.28, p = 0.05. Maximum improvement in bilateral amblyopia was 0.48 (5 lines on logMAR chart) and in unilateral was 0.6 (6 lines). 4 patients with age > 18 years experienced mean 2.5 lines improvement. In home therapy group, seven eyes of seven patients aged 6 – 15 years were included. Five had strabismic amblyopia and 2 had anisometropic amblyopia. The best corrected vision improved in all with a mean 1.8 lines improvement (range 1 – 3 lines).

Conclusion: The new dichoptic therapies are promising treatment for patients with residual amblyopia. The office therapy along with part time patching was more effective than home therapy. Further studies are needed to identify the long-term efficacy of these therapies.

Keywords: Binocular Vision; Dichoptic Therapy; Amblyopia



Amblyopia has 1-5% population prevalence and remains the commonest cause of monocular blindness in age group 20 – 50 years [1- 4]. Next to refractive error, amblyopia is an ophthalmic disorder with the best opportunity-cost. The conventional treatment for unilateral amblyopia is still the occlusion therapy or patching. However, there are at least 6 major limitations with this therapy.

  1. Residual Amblyopia [5]
  2. Poor compliance [6-8]
  3. Poor response in older children and adult amblyopes [9]
  4. Recurrence after cessation of treatment [10]
  5. Lack of improvement in the visuomotor skills, binocular fusion, stereopsis and ocular motility deficits saccades and pursuits [11]
  6. Slow improvement despite of long patching hours and good compliance [5,12].


  1. In amblyopia treatment study (ATS) 2A [5] in a comparison of 6 hours versus full time patching, among the children aged 3 – 7 years with severe amblyopia, more than 85% patients had residual amblyopia of > 2 lines after 4 months of maximum





  1. Next to the age, compliance is the single most important determinant of outcome of amblyopia therapy [6]. The compliance to patching is reported to be 50% in age group > 5 years in the PEDIG study [7]. Highest reported compliance to patching among children is 70% [8].
  2. In ATS 3 [9], less than 50% children aged 7 years to 17 years responded to patching (47% in < 12 years and 25% in 12 – 17 years groups) event when they had never done any patching in the Most patients, including those who had an improvement with patching were left with major residual visual acuity deficit [9].
  3. Approximately one fourth (24%) of successfully treated amblyopic children experience a recurrence within the first year after cessation

of the treatment [10]. Even with maintenance patching, 8 – 10% will have > 1 line drop in the visual acuity [10].

  1. Multiple residual deficits in binocularity (fusion and stereopsis), hand eye coordination (fine motor skills) and ocular motor deficits (saccades, pursuits) are present in children with amblyopia and all of them a negative impact on the vision related quality of life in the affected individuals [11].
  2. In ATS 2A [5] (6 hours/day versus full time patching for severe amblyopia) [5] and ATS 2B [12] (6 hours/day versus minimal 2 hours/ day patching for mild or moderate amblyopia) the fastest improvement in visual acuity was 8 lines in 4 months with 6 hours/day patch- ing.

Due to so many limitations of conventional occlusion therapy, it was necessary to look for different types of vision therapy in the man- agement of amblyopia.

Recently a new form of amblyopia treatment called dichoptic therapy in which a reduced contrast in the dominant eye (in form of video games or movie watching) to equate the visibility comparable to the amblyopic eye yielded reduction in the strength of interocular sup- pression and modest visual acuity improvement of amblyopic eye after just 1 – 5 weeks [13-16]. A Cochrane database review in 2015 on binocular therapies for amblyopia recommended that results from non-controlled cohort studies are encouraging and further research is necessary [17].

In that context, we report the results of a home based as well as office based dichoptic vision therapy in treatment of residual amblyopia.


Materials and Methods

This prospective cohort study included children aged ≥ 6 years or adults with isoametropic (one eye affected more and the inter eye acuity difference of ≥ 2 lines on Baily Lovie type vision charts), anisometropic or strabismic residual amblyopia. We included only those patients who did not respond to 100% compliance to 6 hours/day patching for at least 3 months and full time-full spectacle correction of the refractive error. Patients with deprivational amblyopia or any other ocular comorbidity or neuronal defects were excluded. The patients were randomly assigned to office therapy or home therapy between 1st April 2016, to 31st July 2016.

Office therapy (Group 1)

Twenty minutes session of anti-suppression therapy using monocular fixation in binocular field (MFBF) were given using Sanet Vision Integrator (SVI) (HTS Inc., USA) touch screen system followed by 20 minutes of contour and random dot stereopsis exercises on 3D screen of the vision therapy system 4 (VTS4) (HTS Inc., USA). The contrast of the dominant eye target was kept at the lowest level which induced fusion in the patient. In patients with large manifest squint and suppression despite of lowest contrast in front of dominant eye, binasal occlusion was utilized to induce fusion to begin MFBF therapy. Following 2-3 sessions, none of the patients needed binasal occlusion. Al- ternate day sessions were given for 6 weeks and the data was analysed. The patching of 2 hours/day was continued along with the office therapy. Spatial frequency (crowding) of the stimulus was progressively increased on SVI as the visual acuity improved.

Home therapy (Group 2)

5 hours/week of MFBF was given for 6 weeks sans patching using 3D anyglyph goggles and android game called Stereoblocks. The dominant eye settings of the stereoblock game were adjusted to 30% contrast (lowest) and the lazy eye setting was adjusted to 100% contrast essentially leading to fusion response. Data was analysed after 6 weeks of therapy.




In group 1, sixteen eyes of 11 children were included. 5 had bilateral (isoametropic with inter eye acuity difference of ≥ 2 lines) and

6 had unilateral (anisometropic/strabismic/mixed) amblyopia. Mean age was 12.5 years. Mean improvement in bilateral amblyopia (n

= 10) was 0.26, p < 0.01 (paired t test) and in unilateral amblyopia (n = 5) it was 0.28, p = 0.05. Maximum improvement in bilateral am- blyopia was 0.48 (5 lines on logMAR chart) and in unilateral was 0.6 (6 lines). 4 patients with age > 18 years experienced mean 2.5 lines improvement.

In group 2, seven eyes of seven patients aged 6 – 15 years were included. Five had strabismic amblyopia and 2 had anisometropic am- blyopia. The best corrected vision improved in all with a mean 1.8 lines (range 1 – 3 lines).


In this pilot study, MFBF or the dichoptic vision therapy was associated with significant improvement in visual acuity of the eye with residual amblyopia. The improvement was more rapid compared to conventional occlusion and more effective in office based therapy either because of simultaneous part time patching or due to monitored therapy or both.

The principle of the dichoptic therapy/MFBF is that a contrast adjusted stimulus is presented exclusively to each eye (lower contrast/ saturation in front of dominant eye) where-in the image of right eye was visible only to that eye and the image of the left eye was visible only to the left eye. The brain was forced to integrate the images into a single perception.

Normally binocular interaction does not occur in amblyopia. Weak, noisy signals from the amblyopic eye can contribute to binocular vision if suppression by the fellow eye is reduced when fellow-eye contrast is reduced (or by any other method of by signal attenuation) [18,19].

Recently work from various investigators have demonstrated that dichoptic treatment by home therapy or office therapy or using

dichoptic movies can be useful in children as well as adult amblyopia [13-16].


In the study by Birch EE [20,21] binocular iPad treatment for amblyopia was given. The results of 4 hours/week for 4 weeks of sham games versus iPad dichoptic games were compared. Sham iPad group had no significant improvement as expected. Binocular iPad group had mean visual acuity improvement by > 1 line. They found more improvement with more compliance and more improvement (3 lines more) with associated patching, similar to what we have experienced during this study. With iPad games, best improvement was 4.7 lines in 1 month and the continued treatment did not show further improvement. Also, there was no recurrence after cessation for 3 months. They reported no effect on stereoacuity. The limitation of the treatment was compliance because the tasks are intensive and repetitive and up to 40% of unsupervised patients were noncompliant. The results are very similar to our study.

There are many other studies by various investigators (Table 1), reporting a modest improvement in the visual acuity (1 – 3 lines) and other visual functions using dichoptic action video games or dichoptic movie watching after 4 – 6 weeks of therapy. The improvement is reported in anisometropic as well as strabismic amblyopes and in the younger as well as older children and young adults. Most studies also report sustenance of the benefits till three months after the cessation of the therapy.

Our study demonstrates a comparable improvement in the mean visual acuity (0.18 logMAR). However, when combined with patch- ing and given in the office, dichoptic therapy resulted in significantly better visual outcome (0.28 logMAR). Further studies with larger samples and randomized controls are needed to confirm.

Year of publicationLocation 1st Author)DesignDichoptic therapy usedTotal number of subjectsResults
2015 [22]USAControlledAction video game38Mean VA improvement = 0.14logMAR Stereopsis improved
2015 [22]ChinaControllediPod games or video goggles30Contrast Sensitivity improved
2015 [24]USACohortAction video game23Mean VA improvement = 0.14logMAR
2014 [25]CanadaCohortiPod games14Mean VA improvement = 0.11logMAR Mean Stereopsis improvement = 0.6log
2016 [26]AustraliaControllediPod games30Fine motor skills improved
2016 [27]USAControllediPad games385Mean VA improvement = 0.1logMAR
2015 [20]USAControllediPad games50Mean VA improvement = 0.11logMAR
2015 [28]USACohortMovie watching8Mean VA improvement = 0.2logMAR
2012 [16]UKCohortPerceptual learning14Mean VA improvement = 0.1logMAR
2016 [10]USAControllediPad games28Mean VA improvement = 0.16logMAR
Current StudyIndiaCohortAndroid games and Sanet Vision Integrator (HTS Inc. USA) 18Mean VA improvement = 0.18logMAR

Table 1: A comparison of outcomes of recently published dichoptic therapies.



Table 1: A comparison of outcomes of recently published dichoptic therapies.


In summary, new dichoptic therapies are promising in the treatment of residual amblyopia. The effectiveness may be more for office therapy or when combined with part time patching. Studies are needed to identify the long-term efficacy of these therapies on monocular vision deficits, binocular vision deficits, oculomotor deficits and visuomotor deficits in patients with amblyopia.


Dr Gul Nankani and Dr Sonia Nankani for creating an excellent vision therapy infrastructure and extend the treatment on compassion- ate terms (free services) for children with amblyopia.


  1. Aldebasi “Prevalence of amblyopia in primary school children in Qassim province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”. Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology 22.1 (2015): 86-91.
  2. Fu J., et al. “Prevalence of amblyopia and strabismus in a population of 7th-grade junior high school students in Central China: the Anyang Childhood Eye Study (ACES)”. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 3 (2014): 197-203.
  3. Ganekal , et al. “Prevalence and etiology of amblyopia in Southern India: results from screening of school children aged 5-15 years”.

Ophthalmic Epidemiology 20.4 (2013): 228-231.

  1. Oscar A., et al. “Amblyopia screening in Bulgaria”. Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus 5 (2014): 284-288.
  2. Holmes , et al. “A randomized trial of prescribed patching regimens for treatment of severe amblyopia in children”. Ophthalmology

110.11 (2003): 2075-2087.

  1. Beardsell R., et al. “Outcome of occlusion treatment for amblyopia”. Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus 1 (1999): 19-24.
  2. Wallace , et al. “Compliance with occlusion therapy for childhood amblyopia”. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 54.9 (2013): 6158-6166.
  3. Al-Yahya , et al. “Compliance to patching in the treatment of amblyopia”. Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology 26.3 (2012): 305-307.
  4. Scheiman MM., et al. “Randomized trial of treatment of amblyopia in children aged 7 to 17 years”. Archives of Ophthalmology 4 (2005): 437-447.
  5. Holmes JM., et al. “Risk of amblyopia recurrence after cessation of treatment”. Journal of AAPOS 5 (2004): 420-428.
  6. Birch EE. “Amblyopia and binocular vision”. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research 33 (2013): 67-84.


  1. Repka , et al. “A randomized trial of patching regimens for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children”. Archives of Ophthalmol- ogy 121.5 (2003): 603-611.
  2. Hess , et al. “A new binocular approach to the treatment of amblyopia in adults well beyond the critical period of visual develop- ment”. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 28.6 (2010): 793-802.
  3. Hess , et al. “An iPod treatment of amblyopia: an updated binocular approach”. Optometry 83.2 (2012): 87-94.
  4. To , et al. “A game platform for treatment of amblyopia”. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 19.3 (2011): 280-289.
  5. Knox PJ., et al. “An exploratory study: prolonged periods of binocular stimulation can provide an effective treatment for childhood amblyopia”. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2 (2012): 817-824.
  6. Tailor , et al. “Binocular versus standard occlusion or blurring treatment for unilateral amblyopia in children aged three to eight years”. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 8 (2015): CD011347.
  7. Sengpiel , et al. “Strabismic suppression is mediated by inhibitory interactions in the primary visual cortex”. Cerebral Cortex 16.12 (2006): 1750-1708.
  8. Bi , et al. “Neuronal responses in visual area V2 (V2) of macaque monkeys with strabismic amblyopia”. Cerebral Cortex 21.9 (2011): 2033-2045.
  9. Birch EE., et al. “Binocular iPad treatment for amblyopia in preschool children”. Journal of AAPOS 1 (2015): 6-11.
  10. Li SL., et al. “A binocular iPad treatment for amblyopic children”. Eye (London) 10 (2014): 1246-1253.
  11. Vedamurthy I., et al. “A dichoptic custom-made action video game as a treatment for adult amblyopia”. Vision Research 114 (2015): 173-187.
  12. Li , et al. “Dichoptic training improves contrast sensitivity in adults with amblyopia”. Vision Research 114 (2015): 161-172.
  13. Vedamurthy , et al. “Mechanisms of recovery of visual function in adult amblyopia through a tailored action video game”. Scientific

Reports 5 (2015): 8482.

  1. Hess , et al. “The iPod binocular home-based treatment for amblyopia in adults: efficacy and compliance”. Clinical and Experimen- tal Optometry 97.5 (2014): 389-398.
  2. Webber , et al. “Fine Motor Skills of Children with Amblyopia Improve Following Binocular Treatment”. Investigative Ophthalmol- ogy and Visual Science 157.11 (2016): 4713-4720.
  3. Holmes JM, et al. “Effect of a Binocular iPad Game vs Part-time Patching in Children Aged 5 to 12 Years with Amblyopia: A Random-

ized Clinical Trial”. JAMA Ophthalmology 134.12 (2016): 1391-1400.

  1. Li SL., et al. “Dichoptic movie viewing treats childhood amblyopia”. Journal of AAPOS 5 (2015): 401-405.
  2. Kelly KR., et al. “Binocular iPad Game vs Patching for Treatment of Amblyopia in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial”. JAMA Oph- thalmology 12 (2016): 1402-1408.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Contact us

Call us

+91 7498 75 1001

Send us an email



Sign up for Medicare newsletter to receive all the news offers and discounts from Medicare eye clinic.

Social networks

Contact us

Call us

+91 7498 75 1001

Send us an email



Sign up for Bynocs newsletter to receive all the news offers and discounts from Bynocs.

Social networks