Nicklaus Fogt

Dynamic visual fields of one-eyed observers.

BACKGROUND The horizontal binocular visual field can extend to more than 200 degrees, while a monocular field is limited to 160 degrees. Additionally, the nose and other facial structures may block the monocular field further during certain eye movements. The purpose of this study was to compare the monocular against the binocular visual field and determine if head and eye movements can functionally overcome any measured deficit. METHODS In Experiment 1, visual fields were measured monocularly with a bowl perimeter using 5 fixation positions. Binocular visual fields were calculated by combining the monocular visual field with its mirror image. In Experiment 2, subjects were allowed to make head, eye, and body movements to search for flashing lights 360 degrees around them, spaced every 45 degrees. The numbers of lights identified were compared for the subjects performing monocularly versus binocularly. RESULTS The size of the overall monocular visual field was found to vary between 48% and 76% of the binocular visual field, depending on eye position. For the flashing light experiment, head and eye movements could not overcome the entire visual-field deficit with monocular viewing. Monocular performance remained 11.4% less than binocular performance. CONCLUSIONS The visual-field deficit seen with monocular viewing is greatest with nasal fixation, and head and eye movements cannot totally compensate for this deficit when viewing time is limited. Vision standards that require full visual fields in each eye are more appropriate for occupations in which peripheral visual targets must be identified and visual search time is limited.

A Method to Monitor Eye and Head Tracking Movements in College Baseball Players

Purpose This study had two purposes. The first was to develop a method to measure horizontal gaze tracking errors (based on synchronized eye and head tracking recordings) as subjects viewed many pitched balls. The second was to assess horizontal eye, head, and gaze tracking strategies of a group of Division 1 college baseball players. Methods Subjects viewed, but did not swing a bat at, tennis balls projected by a pneumatic pitching machine. Subjects were to call out numbers and the color of these numbers (black or red) on the balls. The trajectory of each pitch was very predictable. Eye and head movements were monitored with a video eye tracker and an inertial sensor, respectively, and these movements were synchronized with ball position using an analog recording device. Data were analyzed for 15 subjects. Results Eye rotation, head rotation, gaze errors (GEs), and unsigned gaze errors (UGEs) were calculated at various elapsed times. On average, subjects tracked the pitched ball with the head throughout the pitch trajectory, while the eye was moved very little until late in the pitch trajectory. On average, gaze position matched the target position throughout the pitch trajectory. There was some variability in the mean amplitudes of head and eye movement between subjects. However, the eye and head were related by a common rule (partial rotational vestibulo-ocular reflex suppression) for all subjects. Although the mean amplitudes of the GE and UGE varied between subjects, these means were not consistent with anticipatory saccades for any subject. Conclusions On average, Division 1 college players tracked the pitched ball primarily with the head and maintained gaze close to the ball throughout much of the pitch trajectory. There was variability between subjects regarding the head and eye movement amplitudes and GEs, but, overall, all subjects maintained gaze close to the ball throughout the pitch trajectory despite the fact that these individuals were not batting.