direction diplopia was noted. Fusional ranges were nonexistent. Testing using either a large target or RDS on the Computer Orthopter resulted in the same phenomenon. Accommodative testing demonstrated reduced positive relative accommodation (—1-00 D) and negative relative accommodation
(+1.00
D), respectively, monocular accommodative amplitudes were normal(1OD).
Office
therapy began with
Vectograms
and the Computer Orthopter
large fusion targets
and
RDS vergence
program.
The patient
was told to
separate
the
targets
slowly in a
massaging
motion (BO
and 131)
while trying
to
maintain fu sion. She was given Brock
string, Vectograms, and pushups
for home therapy. After four sessions, no further
progress
was made. The patient
was
frustrated
in not knowing what to do with her eyes. On the fifth session
limited
fusion
ranges
were obtained on the RDS
vergence pro
gram, i.e., 5^.
Two
sessions later BO ranges were
l0^
BO
and
3^ B!.
Vectogram
ranges were BO 3/1^ and BI 3/1^. By the eighth session the patient had
learned to make
real vergence movements. RDS ranges improved rapidly
to
BO 25^ and
to
B!
10^;
vectogram
ranges improved
to
BO 25/10^
and
B! 11/1^.
She now
reported
less diplopia and a decrease in asthenopia. Within 9 to 10 sessions, vergence improved rapidly to BO
=
45^
and B!
=
12g. However, vergence movements could only be maintained if separation
was
slow.
Pushups
and Brock string performance improved dramatically (convergence to 2.5 cm). At this point the
goal
was to increase the
speed
of separation. Using a
manual
vergence program, vergence demand was increased slowly from 2.5^/s to 10^/s (#9 to #1 setting). Target
size was decreased.
Next the auto program
was used
to
build sustaining ability. Disparation occurred automatically between BO
=
30^ and B!
=
10g. The
speed
was
set
at
7^/s.
This was done for 5 min
before