Lateral Phenotypes in Children with Ophthalmopathology
https://doi.org/10.18008/1816-5095-2022-3-617-623
Abstract
The work is devoted to one of the most relevant problems of ophthalmology and neurophysiology which is the study of interhemispheric interactions in children with ophthalmopathology.
The purpose of this work is to study lateral phenotypes in children with ophthalmopathology.
Patients and methods. 374 6–15 years old children were observed: 1) 160 children with non-paralytic strabismus; 2) 111 children with organic pathology of the retina and the optic nerve; 3) 103 children of the control group (without ophthalmopathology). The lateral phenotype (LP) was determined according to the scheme “dominant hand — dominant ear — dominant eye”.
Results. Different LP ratios were obtained in the examined groups of children (p < 0.001). The ratio of right-handers / left-handers / ambidextrous children was most uniform in the group of children with non-paralytic strabismus (43,8 / 22,5 / 33,7 %). In the group of children with organic ophthalmopathology it was “shifted” to the right-hand side (65,8 / 10,8 / 23,4 %). In the control group the number of left-handers was minimal, and the number of ambidextrous was maximal (51,4 / 3,9 / 44,7).
Conclusion. It was found that children with organic ophthalmopathology are characterized by the most pronounced predominance of right-sided LP, and children with non-paralytic strabismus are characterized by a relatively uniform distribution of right-sided, left-sided and symmetrical LP. The identified features may reflect increased left-hemispheric activity in children with organic ophthalmopathology and adaptivecompensatory increase in right-hemispheric activity in children with non-paralytic strabismus.
About the Authors
S. I. Rychkova
Kharkevich Institute for Information Transmission Problems of RAS
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
PhD, оphthalmologist, leading researcher of the laboratory of the “Visual system”,
Bolshoy Karetny lane, 19, Moscow, 127051
V. G. Likhvantseva
A.I. Burnazyan Federal Biophysical Center of Federal Medical-Biological Agency;
Academy of Postgraduate Education of Federal Scientific and Clinical Center for Specialized Medical Assistance and Medical Technologies of Federal Medical-Biological Agency
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
MD, Professor of the Department of ophthalmology,
Gamalei str., 15, Moscow, 123098;
Volokolamskoe highway, 91, Moscow, 125371
R. I. Sandimirov
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
student,
Ostrovityanova str., 1 Moscow, 117997
References
1. Atkinson J. The developing visual brain. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. 176 p.
2. Leutin V.P. Functional asymmetry of the brain and adaptation: A textbook. Moscow: Nauchny mir, 2004. 48 p. (In Russ.) URL: http://cerebralasymmetry. narod.ru/Leutin.htm
3. Dalton B.H., Rasman B.G., Inglis J.T. The internal representation of head orientation differs for conscious perception and balance control. Journal of Physiology. 2017;595(8):2731–2749. DOI: 10.1113/JP272998
4. Abekawa N., Ferre E.R., Gallagher M. Disentangling the visual, motor and representational effects of vestibular input. Cortex. 2018;104:46–57. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2018.04.003
5. Dobrokhotova T.A., Bragina N.N. Human functional asymmetries. Moscow: Meditsina, 1988. 240 p. (In Russ.).
6. Fagard J., Corroyer D. Using a continuous index of laterality to determine how later ality is related to interhemispheric transfer and bimanual coordination in children. Developmental Psychobiology. 2003;43(1):44–56. DOI: 10.1002/dev.10117
7. Ignatova J.P., Makarova I.I., Zenina O.Yu. Cur rent aspects of functional hemispheric asymmetry studying (literature review). Hu man ecology = Ekologiya cheloveka. 2016;9:30–39 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.33396/17280869201693039
8. Nikolaeva E.I., Ilyukhina V.A., Vergunov E.G. Peculiarities of in terhemispheric functional asymmetry of the frontal region in 4–7 yearold children with mental development and speech development delay. Comprehensive Child Studies = Kompleksnye issledovaniya detstva. 2019;1(1):11–21 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.33910/268702332019111121
9. Khomskaya E.D., Efimova I.V., Budyka E.V. Neuropsychology of individual differences. The left brain, the right brain and psyche. Moscow: RPA, 1997. 282 p. (In Russ.).
10. Zel’dovich Ya.I. Peculiarities of distribution of lateral phenotypes in 6–7 year old children. Human Physiology = Fiziologiya cheloveka. 2007;33(6):113–116 (In Russ.).
11. Singh М., Manjary M., Dellatolas G. Lateral preference among indian school children. Cortex. 2001;37(2):231–241. DOI: 10/1016/s00109452(08)705707
12. Semenovich A.V. Neuropsychological diagnostics and correction in childhood. Moscow: Meditsina, 2002. 185 p. (In Russ.).
13. Wieczorek M., Hradzki A. Functional and dynamic asymmetry in youth aged 14 and 16 years (comparative research). Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc. Gymn. 2007;37(1):51–61.
14. Fokin V.F., Boravova A.I., Galkina N.S. Stationary and dynamic organization of functional interhemispheric asymmetry. Manual on functional interhemispheric asymmetry. Moscow: Nauchnyi mir, 2009. P. 389–428 (In Russ.).
15. Logue D.D., Logue R.T., Kaufmann W.E. Psychiatric disorders and lefthandness in children living in an urban environment. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition. 2015;20(2):249–256. DOI: 10.1080/1357650x.2014.961927
16. Flammer J. Psychophysical mechanisms and treatment of vasospastic disor ders in normaltension glaucoma. Bulletin de la Société belge d’ophtalmologie. 1992;244(3):129–134.
17. Erb C., Thiel H.J., Flammer J. The psychology of the glaucoma patient. Current Opinion Ophthalmology. 1998;9(2):65–70. DOI: 10.1097/0005573519980400000013
18. Vodovozov A.M. Symmetry-asymmetry of the visual organ in norm and under conditions of strabis mus and visual fatigue. Volgograd: Volgograd State Medical University, 2000. 122 p. (In Russ.).
19. Rychkova S.I., Rozhkova G.I. Interhemispheric asymmetry and spatial perception in patients with concomitant convergent strabismus. Sensory systems = Sensornye sistemy. 2010;3:220– 232 (In Russ.).
20. Mapp A.P., Ono H., Barbeito R. What does the dominant eye dominate? A brief and somewhat contentious review. Perception & Psychophysics. 2003;65(2):310–317. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194802
21. Ehrenstein W.H., ArnoldSchulzGahmen B.E., Jaschinski W. Eye preference within the context of binocular functions. Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology. 2005;243(9):926–932. DOI: 10.1007/s0041700511287
22. Rice M.L., Leske D.A., Holmes J.M. Results of ocular dominance testing depend on assessment method. Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. 2008;12(4):365–369. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2008.01.017
23. Pulyaevskaya O.V., Dzyatkovskaya E.N. Development of psychic functions of preschoolers via musical lessons. Moscow: “Education and ecology” Center, 2005. 184 p. (In Russ.).
24. Carey D.P., Hutchinson C.V. Looking at eye dominance from a different angle: is sighting strength related to hand preference? Cortex. 2013;49:2542–2552.
Review
For citations:
Rychkova S.I., Likhvantseva V.G., Sandimirov R.I. Lateral Phenotypes in Children with Ophthalmopathology. Ophthalmology in Russia. 2022;19(3):617-623. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18008/1816-5095-2022-3-617-623
Views:
408
Email this article 