稜鏡分配於優勢眼與非優勢眼在短期適應後對於眼位的影響

中文摘要目的本研究目的在探討當稜鏡分別配置於優勢眼與非優勢眼時，受試者在短期適應後的眼位變化是否存在差異，並進一步分析背後的融像補償機制與空間感知變動，以釐清不同配置對雙眼視覺系統的整合能力以及穩定性影響。方法共招募50名健康成年人（20—35歲），採用隨機交叉設計進行三種稜鏡分配（優勢眼、非優勢眼、雙眼平均配置）下的短期稜鏡適應實驗。每次配戴6BO稜鏡，適應30分鐘後測量眼位、立體視覺、視覺中線變化，並收集主觀視覺舒適度回饋。另外進行正負融像性聚散測試用以分析融像能力以及補償反應間的關聯。數據使用IBM SPSS Statistics 30進行統計分析。結果在稜鏡介入初期（T1）三組皆顯示出顯著眼位偏移（p < 0.001），其中優勢眼組產生最大偏移量（3.26 ± 0.18△，95% CI：2.76—3.76），短期適應後（T2），三組也顯示出顯著眼位偏移（p < 0.001），其中優勢眼組與非優勢眼組間觀察到顯著差異（p = 0.016）。立體視覺雖在適應後出現變化，但不同配置間無顯著差異（p > 0.05）。在視覺中線方面，非優勢眼組與平均配置組之間呈現顯著差異（p < 0.005）。NFV Recovery（r = 0.368, p = 0.004）及 PFV Break（r = 0.324, p = 0.022）與眼位補償量具有顯著正相關。結論稜鏡配置對視覺補償反應具顯著影響，優勢眼與非優勢眼在應對視覺刺激時展現出不同的融像補償方式。稜鏡所引發的視覺偏移反應出視軸調控能力，同時也牽涉空間知覺與感覺統合的重組。臨床上應該根據個體的融像能力以及視覺主導特性進行客製化稜鏡處方設計，以提升適應效率與視覺穩定性。

AbstractPurposeThis study aims to investigate whether differences in eye alignment changes occur following short-term adaptation when an equal amount of prism is assigned either to the dominant or non-dominant eye. Furthermore, it seeks to analyze the underlying fusion compensation mechanisms and shifts in spatial reference perception, and clarify the effects of different configurations on the integration ability and stability of the binocular visual system.MethodsA total of 50 healthy adults ( aged 20–35 ) were recruited. A randomized crossover design was used to conduct a short-term prism adaptation experiment under three prism allocation conditions ( dominant eye, non-dominant eye, and evenly distributed between both eyes ). Each time, a 6△BO prism was worn, and after 30 minutes of adaptation, changes in eye position, Stereo, and visual midline were measured, and subjective visual comfort feedback was collected. In addition, positive and negative fusional vergence tests were conducted to analyze the relationship between fusion ability and compensation response. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 30.ResultsAt the beginning of prism intervention (T1), all three groups showed a significant shift in phoria (p < 0.001), with the dominant eye group exhibiting the greatest deviation (3.26 ± 0.18△, 95% CI: 2.76–3.76). After short-term adaptation (T2), a significant phoria shift was still observed in all groups (p < 0.001), and a significant difference was found between the dominant and non-dominant eye groups (p = 0.016).Although stereopsis changed following adaptation, no significant differences were observed among the three configurations (p > 0.05). Regarding the visual midline, a significant difference was found between the non-dominant eye group and the balanced distribution group (p < 0.005).NFV recovery (r = 0.368, p = 0.004) and PFV break (r = 0.324, p = 0.022) were significantly positively correlated with the magnitude of phoria compensation.ConclusionPrism allocation exerts a significant influence on visual compensation responses, with the dominant and non-dominant eyes exhibiting distinct fusion compensation strategies when responding to visual stimuli. The visual deviations induced by prisms reflect the capacity for oculomotor control and are also associated with the reorganization of spatial perception and multisensory integration. Clinically, prism prescriptions should be customized based on the individual's fusion ability and visual dominance characteristics, in order to enhance adaptation efficiency and ensure visual stability.