Scholarlink

<p>Computer methods have been actively introduced into the practice of treating strabismus and amblyopia since the 1990s. Several independent groups of specialists immediately emerged in Russian ophthalmology, creating interactive computer programs (ICP) for the diagnosis and treatment of these disorders of binocular vision. This led to the emergence of a considerable range of ICP and hardware and software systems with different purposes and technologies for separating left and right images and different designs. The main factors determining the potential for the development of computer methods were, and still are, advances in basic research into the visual system, the results of the practical application of existing ICP, and technical innovations. However, the implementation of this potential is hampered by a number of marketing and social factors complicating the exchange of experience between different groups of specialists developing and using ICP and by a lack of theoretical discussion of the general methodology, optimization methods, and modes of using different ICP. In connection with the emergence of fundamentally new data on the pathogenesis and treatment of amblyopia and the possibility of successful activation of long-blocked (“dormant”) mechanisms of binocular stereopsis in adult patients, there is an urgent need to reconsider the current situation. There are contradictory views as to the efficacies of computerized binocular therapy methods (BTM): some researchers give very high ratings, while others see virtually no specific benefit from BTM as compared with traditional methods. This article identifies a number of reasons explaining the lack of consensus: vagueness of the criteria for identifying methods as being of the “BTM class,” differences in technical options for implementing BTM, the specific characteristics of visual stimuli and the conditions for application of BTM, differences between groups of patients and ways of working with them (such as training, instruction, assistance, encouragement, involvement in the selection of working material, etc.). The requirements for appropriate examination and comparative assessment of the efficacies of different methods of treating disorders of binocular vision are discussed.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Analysis of the Development of Computer Methods in the Binocular Treatment of Strabismus and Amblyopia

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月1日

查看全文
  • G. I. Rozhkova,
  • T. A. Podugolnikova,
  • M. A. Gracheva,
  • N. N. Vasilyeva,
  • A. V. Belokopytov,
  • N. E. Kononova,
  • I. E. Khatsenko

摘要

Computer methods have been actively introduced into the practice of treating strabismus and amblyopia since the 1990s. Several independent groups of specialists immediately emerged in Russian ophthalmology, creating interactive computer programs (ICP) for the diagnosis and treatment of these disorders of binocular vision. This led to the emergence of a considerable range of ICP and hardware and software systems with different purposes and technologies for separating left and right images and different designs. The main factors determining the potential for the development of computer methods were, and still are, advances in basic research into the visual system, the results of the practical application of existing ICP, and technical innovations. However, the implementation of this potential is hampered by a number of marketing and social factors complicating the exchange of experience between different groups of specialists developing and using ICP and by a lack of theoretical discussion of the general methodology, optimization methods, and modes of using different ICP. In connection with the emergence of fundamentally new data on the pathogenesis and treatment of amblyopia and the possibility of successful activation of long-blocked (“dormant”) mechanisms of binocular stereopsis in adult patients, there is an urgent need to reconsider the current situation. There are contradictory views as to the efficacies of computerized binocular therapy methods (BTM): some researchers give very high ratings, while others see virtually no specific benefit from BTM as compared with traditional methods. This article identifies a number of reasons explaining the lack of consensus: vagueness of the criteria for identifying methods as being of the “BTM class,” differences in technical options for implementing BTM, the specific characteristics of visual stimuli and the conditions for application of BTM, differences between groups of patients and ways of working with them (such as training, instruction, assistance, encouragement, involvement in the selection of working material, etc.). The requirements for appropriate examination and comparative assessment of the efficacies of different methods of treating disorders of binocular vision are discussed.