Talk:Ocular dominance

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ocular dominance article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biology Low‑importance

	Biology portal Ocular dominance is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anatomy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Kommerell, Guntram; Schmitt, Christina; Kromeier, Miriam; Bach, Michael (June 2003). "Ocular prevalence versus ocular dominance". Vision Research. 43 (12): 1397–1403. doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(03)00121-4. PMID 12742109.

Comment

"Approximately two-thirds of the population is right-eye dominant" I'm not completeky certain this is totally true... out of the 20 ppl I surveyed (sci project) 9 were 'right-eyed'(3 were lefties, 4 were righties, 2 were lefty turned righties) while 11 were 'left-eyed'(all were righties). I figured that if you're a lefty, then your right eye is dominant and when you're a righty, your left eye is dominant (with a few exceptions)<=cross-dominance. Is there some kind of explanation...?... ~Sushi 07:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My own experience with patients mirrors the figures cited in the article. Perhaps your results are due to a small sample size or some other anomaly (i.e. type of dominance test used, subjects not "blinded", etc.). -AED 05:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried several of the methods for testing eye dominance and after about 20 tries I came out right eye dominant 45% and left eye dominant 55%. Not enough of a difference to say which I am. I think those tests are a farce. When I viewed the distant object through the "hole" in the different variations of the tests the results of the test only depended on which eye, by chance, saw the object first. I am especially intrigued about this because when I look through my new telescope I can see much better through my left eye but it seems very uncomfortable to do so. It seems much more natural to look through my right eye which makes me think that I am right eye dominant even though my left eye can see better.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.20.85 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I took the Miles Test, and I tested out left eyed every time. I also use my left eye to look through telescopes with but am right handed. The Miles Test doesn't work right if done incorrectly, (when I only used one hand the dominant eye depended on which hand I was holding up). I tried the Porta Test too, and it doesn't work at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.116.91.171 (talk • contribs) .

errors maybe?

This is out of my area of competence, so i'll leave it to someone else to do:

1) in the last sentence before the References, should "Forced choice" tests dominance, have an "of" after tests?

2) Is this statement the wrong way round?

In those with anisometropic myopia (i.e. different amounts of nearsightedness between the two eyes), the dominant eye has been found to be the one with more myopia[11][12].

(My dominant eye is the less myopic, but maybe that's just randomness.)

Coughinink 07:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first point, you are correct that "of" was missing. Regarding your second point, the sentence is correct as written. One of the sources ([1] helps to explain why that is. -AED 16:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that sentence about myopia is true either. I have ansiometropic myopia where the more myopic eye had changed over the years, but I have always been left eyed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.68.148.253 (talk • contribs) 6 October 2006 (UTC).

As Coughinink suggested, I think your finding could be attributed to randomness and sample size. I'm not sure that your personal experience of n=1 is sufficient to refute the two studies referenced in the article. -AED 16:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about spectrum and distance dominance?

My right eye is dominant towards the red spectrum. My left eye tends towards the green/blue. Similarly, what about distance dominance? My right eye is dominant for far distances while my left is dominant at near ranges. Is my distance dominance due to chromatic dominance, since indoor fluorescent lighting tends toward green? So indoors, my right eye becomes lazy. Have any of you optometrists anything to write about chromatic and distance dominance?

Miamidot 15:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither eye is dominant

This regards the statement in line 1 of the second paragraph stating "in a small portion of the population neither eye is dominant". I got to this page because that is the exact info I was looking for. I guess it hasn't been fully expounded on.

All I can offer on the subject is anecdotal and pertains to me, personally.

I've done all/many of the things that supposedly allow one to determine eye dominance -- make a small hole by holding the hands together and bring it to an eye; similarly, look thru a small hole in a piece of paper; point at something with a finger and see which eye is looking down the finger; hold a thumb up, close an eye and see whether it moves or disappears. None of that works for me. I see two holes formed by the hands, two holes in the piece of paper, two thumbs, two fingers pointing, etc.

Anyone else see things the way I do and are unable to determine a dominant eye?

Thanks.

No help from me here with your condition, but I don' have a single dominant eye either. I can switch which eye I look through at will, and my brain also switches automatically: my right likes it better at short ranges, and my left likes it better at long ranges. If I don't consciously keep looking through the other, this is how they'll end up. I'd like to know the actual proportion of people with no dominant eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.202.59 (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing I came looking for. Anecdotally, when its raining, I see better with the windshield wipers off, because my eyes can see a clear picture of whatever I'm focusing on, and that equidistant plane around the object, and some fixed distance from me. I'm curious if it has some neurophysiological basis, as I'm entering neurology (and medicine) in a few years. Sentriclecub (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also have not been able to use any of the tests mentioned, since both images are of about equal dominance, and with a certain effort of concentration I can mentally switch between eyes. I have found this test to be interesting however: With one eye covered, line up a near object and a distant object with the open eye, and rapidly switch focus between them. Repeat this test for the other eye. I have found that when doing this, my left eye stays fixed when focusing between near and distant objects, but my right eye makes a brief sideward saccade and then fixes back on the target. Has anyone heard of a similar test before? Duckspeaker (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.77.52 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the guy that posted originally about not having a dominant eye. Duckspeaker - I tried your "scenario". I do not have a problem focusing with either eye, either near or close. Everything is clear. I still believe I do not have an eye that is dominant in any sense. BTW, I was the guy that made the original post. Maybe I'm just a wierd oddity (eye-wise). But, it surely is nice to have good vision and not have to even think about which one to look out of. Now, if the hearing was anywhere near as good. Oh! well. (Glen) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.177.145 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the thumb test is the easiest way to disprove the existence of ocular dominance, when you hold your thumb at arms length depending on whether your focusing on the object or your thumb, one will be doubled, that is non convergent. the lenses of your eyes will be focused at a different distance but it has no impact on the test. when you choose one of the doubles to align the object with, youre choosing what eye is "dominant". the other tests go further to obscure the other eyes view, making it generally a crap shoot as to what outcome youll have. the hole-in-the-cardboard method in particular is extremely manipulative, presumably you cant move or move the cardboard making it essentially a fixed outcome as the object will only be visible through one eye regardless. its the same concept as putting your eye directly against the hole. whatever eye is aligned with the object will be the dominant eye as a result. it doesnt measure anything, it would be funny if it wasnt so stupid. i dont know how you go about getting an accepted well established fallacy removed from wikipedia but this is dumb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.215.169 (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Issue

I'm in the same boat as the original poster, which got me started down this rabbit hole, but the reason I'm on the talk page is the citation for "Relationship between handedness and ocular dominance in healthy young adults–A study." I've read the article and seems like it presents no evidence to confirm having neither eye dominant is a possibility, it just cites two other papers which I cannot find in their entirety. Reading the abstracts, one states that the split is 68% to 32% (leaving a possible rounding issue described in the paper as the only chance of neither eye dominance being mentioned) and the other abstract doesn't mention it at all. Is anyone able to find either of these papers and update the citation? Ideally adding the correct ratios as well, if available. Exor314 (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a new citation and added it to {{refideas}} at the top of the page. In the introduction, it states:

Hillemanns (1927) confirmed Rosenbach’s finding. In his study of 400 non-strabismic subjects, about 40% showed a dominance of the right and about 20% of the left eye. About 40% felt uncertain which of the index finger’s double images they should align with the target, and when forced to choose they varied on repeated testing. Similar results were obtained with several other sighting tests (Coren & Kaplan, 1973; Crider, 1944; Porac & Coren, 1976).

Unfortunately I'm unable to dig up the any of the papers being cited (and several of them are in German, which I am unable to read). But I think this might be a useful starting point. --Pokechu22 (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which side of each eye is Controlled By Each Hemisphere?

Just want to know.35.11.207.145 (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed currently in lead paragraph, responsibility is shared between them. 69.144.93.138 (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition in 'Determination of ocular dominance'

Numbers 1-4 are exactly the same method, only with different shapes used to aim:

Small opening with both hands
Pointed finger with one hand
Circle with one hand
Card with a hole in it

OK, I'm the guy guilty of redundancy. I used the above as examples. George's rewrite is perfectly acceptable to me. But, it still begs the questions: "Do other's not have a dominant eye? If so, to what percentage of the population does this apply?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamfgo (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest rewrite along the lines of:

The observer holds up some kind of reticle at arms length, then with both eyes open views a distant object through the reticle. The observer then closes each eye in turn; when the dominant eye is closed, the observer will loose sight of the object. Alternatively, the observer can draw the reticle back to the head, where it should naturally touch one eye (the dominant eye). Common rectiles used are: A small opening made with two hands (Miles), a pointed finger (Porta), a circle made with one hand, or a card with a hole in it (Dolman).

--George Makepeace (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you change the ocular dominance?

I understand that you "learn" it as a child. But what can be learned, can be unlearned. Is it possible to make my other eye dominant? e.g. by covering my dominant eye and using only the other one??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.178.160 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed in Treatment section of current version, that's the intention of eye patch treatments. 69.144.93.138 (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unscientific.

This is me saying it in a kind way, this is unscientific and should be disclaimed as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvermirai (talk • contribs) 15:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Think about the method of determining your "dominant eye", starts with "put your palms in front of you", HOW is that scientific ? WHAT ? Am I the only one seeing that this is some pseudo-science BS ?

There is simply no objective way of determining one's "dominant eye" if there is even such a thing. i am appalled by this article and the number of people believing it. Silvermirai (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing pseudoscientific to it, as you don't need expensive laser interferometry to illustrate the effect. It simply lets you see for yourself which eye is doing most of the seeing of distant objects. Just as tightening a hole you'd see through with your hands can illustrate the greater depth of field of pinpoint apertures versus wide ones. Hypothesis, experiment, results, etc., all consistent with repeatable research and principles, and it works for those with eye dominance. 69.144.93.138 (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexia

It appears that a lack of ocular dominance might be the ultimate underlying cause of dyslexia, according to https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/18/dyslexia-scientists-claim-cause-of-condition-may-lie-in-the-eyes?CMP=fb_gu^[1] As unconfirmed as this may be, I would think this deserves some mention in the article; however, I would think it best to have an expert put it in. In the mean time how many of the people who mentioned that they do not have ocular dominance (above) happen to have dyslexia?

Obviously expertise would be the best-case scenario, but in the meantime I don't think a brief mention would violate WP:MEDRS and it appears to be about science and not about medicine. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ France-Presse, Agence. "Dyslexia: scientists claim cause of condition may lie in the eyes". www.theguardian.com. Retrieved 19 October 2017.

High Possibility Vandalism (70% to 69.42% edit)

The edit by Anonymous User (2603:9001:6405:F600:D170:A841:4B37:DC53) on 22 June 2021 changed the 70% in the article to 69.42%, a high possible reference to joke and parody. The edit also has no reference backing up so is highly probable of vandalism. Currently for an unknown reason I cannot login to my account and wouldn't want to change it anonymously so if anyone can look into it it would be greatly appreciated. (idk why the formal tone I used lol, it just feels like it would suit the best) 82.114.53.246 (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wait got my account now, I will do it myself (at least try to) Qty10 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] France-Presse, Agence. "Dyslexia: scientists claim cause of condition may lie in the eyes". www.theguardian.com. Retrieved 19 October 2017.

[1]