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

Americican JOURNAL

OF OPTOMETRY

& PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTIcS

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

April 1980

Copyright C) 1980 American

Academy of Optometry

Printed in U.S.A.

Operant Conditioning of

Fusional Convergence

Ranges using Random Dot

Stereograms

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, ex-

otropia, 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 pa-

tient 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 ques-

tions about blur, diplopia, suppressions,

205

JEFFREY COOPER~

JEROME FELDMANf

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

York