This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.  Read our Cookies Policy.
Close
Eye News
  • Features
    • Close
    • Features
    • Allied Professions
    • Humanitarian
    • Interviews
    • AI & Oculomics
    • Ophthalmology
    • Optometry
    • Podcast videos
    • Supplements
  • Education
    • Close
    • Education
    • Learning Curve
    • Quiz
    • Top Tips
    • Trainees
    • Medico-Legal
    • The Truth Behind The Headlines
    • Case Reports
    • Pete's Bogus Journey
  • Reviews
    • Close
    • Reviews
    • Book Reviews
    • Journal Reviews
    • What's trending?
    • Tech Reviews
    • My Top Five
    • The Culture Section
  • Events
  • News
  • Product Guide
  • Industry News
  • Contact us
    • Close
    • Contact us
    • Write for Eye News
  • Home
  • Reviews
  • Journal Reviews
  • Testing fusional amplitude

Testing fusional amplitude
Reviewed by Fiona Rowe

1 August 2018 | Fiona Rowe (Prof) | EYE - Paediatrics, EYE - Strabismus

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of varied testing distance and order of testing on fusion amplitudes in subjects with normal eye examinations, along with impact of examination encouragement and subject level of alertness. Average age of 99 subjects was 38 years with a 4:1 F:M ratio. A modified cross-over design was used to alter the order of testing. All measured heterophoria was incorporated into the final value of fusional amplitude. Break and recovery points for divergence were significantly affected when assessed after convergence. Measurements at near were significantly higher for convergence and divergence than at distance. A significant negative correlation was found for age and convergence break and recovery points. Encouragement significantly affected convergence break and recovery points but there was no significant association with alertness. The author recommends a standardised testing approach to enable more accurate comparisons of measures.

Fusional amplitudes: developing testing standards.
Fray KJ.
STRABISMUS
2017;25:145-55.
Share This
Fiona Rowe (Prof)
CONTRIBUTOR
Fiona Rowe (Prof)

Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, UK.

View Full Profile
Specialty
  • EYE - Cataract
  • EYE - Cornea
  • EYE - General
  • EYE - Glaucoma
  • EYE - Neuro-ophthalmology
  • EYE - Oculoplastic
  • EYE - Oncology
  • EYE - Orbit
  • EYE - Paediatrics
  • EYE - Pathology
  • EYE - Refractive
  • EYE - Strabismus
  • EYE - Vitreo-Retinal
Archive
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013

Top Of Page

9 Gayfield Square, 
Edinburgh EH1 3NT, UK.

Call: +44 (0)131 557 4184
www.pinpoint-scotland.com

WEBSITE DETAILS
  • Cookie Policy
  • Data Protection Notice
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
ABOUT US
  • Who we are
  • Register
  • Contact us
  • Contributors
  • Company Awards
DIGITAL ISSUES/GUIDELINES
  • Digital issues - Library
  • Supplements - Library
  • Guidelines
Accreditations
IPSO_FLAG_TEAL 2025.png cpdcertified.png

Pinpoint Scotland Ltd (Registered in Scotland No. SC068684) | © 2025 - Website by Gecko Agency