0093-7002/80/5704-0205$02.0O/O

Americican JOURNAL

OF OPTOMETRY

& PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTIcS

Vol. 57, No. 4, PP. 205-213

April 1980

Academy of Optometry

Printed in U.S.A.

Operant Conditioning of

Fusional Convergence

Ranges using Random Dot

Stereog rams

Abstract

In Experiment 1, four 6- to 1 0-year-old strabismic patients, who had failed to improve convergence ranges using traditional vision training techniques, were given convergence training using random dot stereograms (ROS). An integral part of the ROS training procedure was the incorporation of an operant conditioning procedure providing for response-contingent positive reinforcement, immediate feedback. and preprogrammed systematic changes in convergence demand during discrimination learning. Findings indicated that operant RDS convergence training produced a significant increase in convergence ranges which transferred readily to vectogram tasks and resulted in a change from exotropia to exophoria for at least one patient. In Experiment 2, it was shown that improved convergence ability was a direct result of exposure to ROS of increasing convergence demand. It was concluded that young, uncooperative, language-deficient, or inattentive patients show improved convergence ranges when such training incorporates proper stimuli and the basic principles of learning and motivation into its training regimen.

Key Words: convergence, strabismus, operant conditioning, behavior modification, random-dot stereograms, vision training, orthoptics, children, exotropia, convergence insufficiency, fusion

Fusional convergence training is often used in the treatment of such binocular anomalies as convergence insufficiency, exotropia, etc.1-3 A common type of training involves the use of various convergence stimuli presented at progressively greater demands. Sometimes such training fails to

Presented at the annual meeting of the American

Academy of Optometry, Boston, Massachusetts, De~

cember 12, 1978.

Received May 2, 1979; revision received October 17,

1979.

Optometrist, M.S., Member of Faculty, F.A.A.O.

t Psychologist, Ph.D., Member of Faculty.

result in the remediation of the patient’s visual problem, particularly when the patient is young. The most probable reasons for this failure relate to the nature of the stimuli, the ability to generate valid and reliable patient responses, and the specific training procedure used.4’5

Typical vision training or orthoptic tasks use line or contour stereograms. These stimuli have few controls to determine if the patient’s response is a valid and reliable indicator of what is actually perceived. That is, it is often difficult to evaluate whether a patient’s verbal response to questions about blur, diplopia, suppressions,

205

JEFFREY COOPER~

JEROME FELDMANf

State College of Optometry, State University of New York. New York, New

York