Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

VISION THERAPY

FOR A PATIENT WITH


DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY
LITERATURE REVIEW & CASE REPORT

Leanna M Dudley, O.D.1 life, saccades, special populations, vision ered visual efficiency disorders such as
oculomotor dysfunction (OMD), accom-
Terri Vasch, O.D.2 therapy
modative insufficiency and binocular co-
1. Private Practice, Golden, CO INTRODUCTION ordination. Some visual efficiency disor-

D
2. Private Practice, Silverton, OR Developmental Delay ders have been documented in subgroups
evelopmental delay (DD) is of DD, including cerebral palsy, Downs
Abstract characterized by a late onset of syndrome, low birth weight children and
Individuals with developmental delay motor, speech, behavioral and/or genetic anomalies. Individuals with ce-
(DD) have a higher incidence of visual cognitive skills.1 There are many causes rebral palsy have a markedly higher in-
problems including visual efficiency dis- of DD including, but not limited to: ge- cidence of visual efficiency disorders
orders. Ocular motor dysfunction (OMD) netic syndromes, acquired brain injury, such as accommodative insufficiency
is one such disorder that can negatively cerebral palsy, autism, seizures, central (42%-100%) and oculomotor dysfunction
impact an individuals quality of life. nervous system malformations, low birth (100%).8,9 Downs Syndrome patients also
Gross motor control and coordination weight, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopa- have a high occurrence of accommodative
are the foundations for fine motor con- thy, abnormal movement pattern and insufficiency (80-92%), although the inci-
trol, especially for eye movements. In- abnormal muscle tone.2 The prevalence dence of OMD has not been reported.10,11
dividuals with DD tend to have poorly of DD in the general population varies Children born prematurely have difficulty
developed gross motor skills.It follows depending on the criteria used. Studies with voluntary control of saccades as in-
that they frequently will have delayed fine based on parent surveys vary from 3.3% fants.12 Aside from these reports, there is
motor skills including ocular motor per- to 17%.3,4 A more objective study by little evidence in the literature that gives
formance. A 10-year-old white male pre- Rosenberg et al was based on a sample of an accurate picture of the visual function
sented with developmental delay and very young children, representative of the en- of children with DD. Regardless of the
poor oculomotor control. He was treated tire United States, eligible for Part C early patients individual level of function, visu-
with 20 sessions of vision therapy (VT) intervention services.1 Part C service is al efficiency conditions such as OMD and
resulting in significant improvements in an interagency program for coordinating accommodative insufficiency can have a
visual efficiency skills. VT is very effec- early intervention through speech and oc- significant negative impact on daily life
tive in the treatment of OMD in the gen- cupational therapy for children ages nine and learning capabilities of the patient.
eral population. This case demonstrates months to three years and identified as Oculomotor dysfunction
that individuals with DD can benefit from having DD. Determination of DD is based As toddlers, children are primarily mo-
VT as well. Often bilateral coordination on testing cognitive and motor skills, or tor-driven.13 Normal oculomotor control
and body awareness are critical building the presence of diagnosed conditions that develops as a result of using vision to
blocks for accurate eye movements. Such confer high risk for developmental delay. replace motor exploration of the environ-
activities should be integrated into the VT Almost 14% of all children were qualified ment. This process can only occur once
program. as DD, although only 10% of the 14% re- gross motor coordination develops ap-
ceived Part C services. propriately. Gross motor control includes
Key Words bilateral coordination, visual motor inte-
The prevalence of visual conditions found
bilateral integration, body awareness, de- gration and body awareness. Bilateral co-
in the DD population is not well reported
velopmental delay, eye movements, ocu- ordination allows the child to differentiate
but seems to vary depending on the etiol-
lomotor dysfunction, pursuits, quality of right from left and gain an inherent knowl-
ogy of the delay. Although some studies
describe an increased incidence of high edge of midline and laterality. Visual mo-
Dudley LM, Vasch T. Vision therapy for a patient
with developmental delay: Literature review and refractive error and reduced visual acuity tor integration enables the child to transi-
case report. J Behav Optom 2010;21:39-45.. in these populations,5-7 few have consid- tion from motor to vision as the primary
Journal of Behavioral Optometry Volume 21/2010/Number 2/Page 39
learning modality. The child must also be Table 1. Symptoms associated with OMD
aware of where their body is in space be-
fore they can accurately localize targets.14 General signs and symptoms Signs and symptoms while reading
These gross motor elements are critical Poor fixation, locating or tracking objects Loss of place
for the development of fine motor control. Head or body movement while tracking Skipping words or skipping lines
Eye movements are the pinnacle of fine Difficulty copying from far to near Excessive head movement
motor control given the high demand for Short attention span Eyestrain or headache
accurate, coordinated movements. Conse-
Poor performance in sports Slow reader
quently, deficits in gross motor coordina-
Motion sickness or dizziness Uses finger to keep place
tion can lead to OMD. The same types of
gross motor deficits can cause problems Poor visually-guided coordination Poor comprehension
with laterality, directionality, and visual Adapted from Scheiman M, Wick B. Eye Movement Disorders. In: Scheiman M, Wick B, eds. Clinical
spatial skills resulting in delays of visual Management of Binocular Vision,15 and Applied concepts in Vision Therapy.16
perception. For this reason it is common
based on age. (Appendix) Low scores, es- 20/20 visual acuity at distance OD, OS
to find OMD concurrently with visual
pecially in the categories of head and body and OU. Monocular near visual acuity
perceptual dysfunctions.15,16
movement, indicate OMD. Reading-re- was reduced to 20/40 OD, 20/30 OS, but
The clinical definition of OMD is the de-
lated eye movements can be assessed was 20/20 OU. Pupils were round and re-
lay or inability to control the eyes while
using the DEM,24,25 a well established, active to light without afferent pupillary
making pursuits, saccades or maintaining
reliable scoring system. Once OMD has defect. Anterior segment ocular health
fixation. This results in a decrease in vi-
been identified, vision therapy (VT) is the was unremarkable. Posterior segment
sual efficiency that can affect reading and
traditional treatment approach.26,27 health was evaluated with dilated fundus
learning significantly.17 A list of typical
CASE REPORT exam and was also unremarkable.
symptoms of OMD can be found in Table
A 10-year-old white male of Eastern Eu- While ocular motilites were full, pursuit
1.
ropean descent presented for a compre- movements were severely deficient re-
Many children will not actively offer
hensive eye exam at Silver Falls Eyecare sulting in NSUCO score age equivalent
complaints since they may not be aware
in March of 2007. The chief complaints of less than 5 years of age. Pursuits were
of the problem. In the absence of pathol-
from his mother included poor visual at- characterized by significant head and
ogy, OMD is typically found in school-
tention, trouble seeing the computer, los- torso movement, profound inaccuracy
age children and is the result of incom-
ing his place often and poor eye contact. and inability to complete a single rota-
plete development of the internal spatial
His teacher was concerned that he had not tion. Saccadic eye movements were also
map and is thought to be a problem
made any progress recently and suspected very poor resulting in NSUCO score age
within the higher levels of neurologic
a visual problem. Delays in gross and fine equivalent of less than 5 years old. Sac-
function.15(p.246-262)
motor coordination were also reported. cades required head and torso movement
The prevalence of OMD in the general
His mother revealed concern at some of to initiate the saccade and were grossly
population has not been established, al-
these unusual behaviors she observed. inaccurate with very poor ability to com-
though most clinicians would agree it is
The patient was adopted at age 7 and plete a single cycle between targets. A
not uncommon to find the condition in
consequently much of his medical his- complete description of the NSUCO pro-
children and some adults. Studies have
tory was unknown. A recent neurologi- cedures, scoring criterion and age norms
found that good readers tend to have good
cal and physical examination revealed are listed in the Appendix. Fixation was
eye movements and a low prevalence of
overall developmental delays including of very short duration (<2 seconds) with
OMD. Preliminary reports by Maples
mental retardation, poor gross motor de- significant latency of initiation, frequent
and Ficklin indicate that the incidence of
velopment and speech delays. The cause large saccadic intrusions and large fixation
OMD in good readers ranges from 6-19%.
of the overall DD was suspected to be a errors up to 15 degrees. The patient had
Conversely, individuals with learning dis-
hypoxic event prior to or during birth and/ little ability to control his eye movements
ability were found to have OMD in 24-
or an alcohol related neurodevelopmental and often could not move his eyes to the
40% of the population.18 Some specific
disorder. However, the facial features of desired target, even with concentration
populations have increased prevalence of
the patient were not characteristic of fetal and effort. Binocular findings including
this condition, as well as other visual ef-
alcohol syndrome. At one month prior to phoria and vergence ranges were border-
ficiency disorders. OMD is found more
his initial visit to clinic he was diagnosed line. Stereoacuity at near was reduced to
often in individuals with traumatic brain
with Attention Deficit Disorder for which 70 seconds of arc with Wirt circles. Nega-
injury,19 learning disabilities,20-22 cerebral
he was prescribed Atomoxetine HCl tive relative accommodation (NRA) was
palsy, premature births12 and other special
(Straterra) for one month. He was en- +0.50 and positive relative accommoda-
populations.5
rolled in grade 3 at a public school special tion (PRA) was -0.25, both very reduced.
There are a number of subjective and
education program. Speech therapy was The DEM was very poor with many errors
objective tests to diagnose OMD.18 The
provided by the public school, but neither resulting in an age equivalent below test
Northeastern State University College of
occupational therapy nor physical therapy norms. The DEM recording form in Fig-
Optometrys (NSUCO)a oculomotor test
had been initiated. ure 1 illustrates the difficulties the patient
and the Developmental Eye Movement
The pertinent examination findings are had with horizontal eye movements.
Test (DEM are two such tests.24,25,b Using
summarized in Table 2 under pre-VT. Tests of visual perception were admin-
a scaling system of 1-5, eye movements
The refraction revealed emmetropia with istered to assess the patients ability to
can be quantified and compared to norms
Volume 21/2010/Number 2/Page 40 Journal of Behavioral Optometry
Table 2. Clinical Findings Pre- and Post-Vision Therapy process visual information. The follow-
Diagnostic Test Pre-Vision Therapy (6/07) Post-Vision Therapy (12/07) ing tests were administered to assess the
corresponding visual skills: Piaget Left/
Near Visual Acuity 20/40 OD, 20/30 OS, 20/20 OU 20/20 OD,OS, OU
Right Awareness28 (laterality/directional-
NSUCO Pursuits15 Ability 2 Age Ability 5 Age ity), Jordan Left/Right Reversal29 (direc-
Accuracy 2 <5 yr Accuracy 2 8 yr tionality), Beery Developmental Test of
Head Movm 1 equiv Head Movm 3 equiv Visual Motor Integration (VMI)30 (visual
Body Movm 1 Body Movm 4 motor integration), Monroe Visual Three31
NSUCO Saccades15 Ability 2 Age Ability 5 Age (visual memory), Visual Manipulation
Accuracy 1 <5 yr Accuracy 3 8 yr Test by Getman-Henderson-Marcus32 (vi-
sual spatial skills), and the Motor-Free
Head Movm 1 equiv Head Movm 3 equiv
Visual Perception Test (MVPT)33 (over-
Body Movm 1 Body Movm 4 all visual perceptual skills). Severe defi-
Fixation Duration <2 sec, significant Duration 7-8 sec, no latency ciencies were noted in all areas of visual
latency of initiation, frequent of initiation, 1-2 small saccadic processing. The patients average perfor-
large saccadic intrusions, large intrusions, good accuracy
fixation errors mance on tests of visual perception was at
a 5 year age equivalent. Moderate speech
Stereo Vision 70 sec of arc 20 sec of arc
delay was observed but the patient could
NRA/PRA +0.50/-0.25 +2.75/-2.50
adequately express himself and follow in-
DEM24,25 Vert 84s Age Vert 81s Age <6 yr structions. Attention was often poor but
Horiz 155s <6 yr Horiz 87s Age 7 yr the patient responded well to verbal re-
Err 31 equiv Err 16 Age 7 yr direction. The following diagnoses were
Ratio 1.84 Ratio 1.07 Age >14 yr made: profound oculomotor dysfunction,
Piaget L/R 28 Age 6 equivalent Age 11 equivalent severe accommodative insufficiency and
overall visual processing deficits.
Jordan L/R Reversal29 Part 1&2: 23 errors Part 1&2: 2 errors
VT was recommended with an estimate of
Below age 5 equivalent Age 10 equivalent 20 sessions consisting of weekly 45 min-
Beery VMI30 Age 5.3 equivalent Age 5.7 equivalent ute in-office sessions combined with daily
Monroe Visual Age 4 equivalent Age 9 equivalent home activities. The VT components are
Three31 listed in Table 3. The goal for therapy was
Visual Manipulation32 Age 4 equivalent Age 4 equivalent improvement of oculomotor control and
MVPT 33
Age 6.8 equivalent Age 6.11 equivalent gross motor coordination. The patient
See Appendix A for NSUCO scoring criterion and age norms was not a visually guided learner; he was
still relying heavily on reinforcement from
auditory and motor input. An occupa-
tional therapy evaluation was also recom-
mended but due to the familys financial
limitations it was not presently affordable.
VT was initiated in June 2007 and the rec-
ommended 20 sessions were completed
over a period of six months. There was
good attendance to office sessions and
moderate compliance with home therapy
activities. Emphasis was placed on bilat-
eral integration, body awareness, lateral-
ity, visual motor integration, pursuit and
saccadic eye movements, accommodation
and vergence. Visual perception skills
were addressed, but given a more guarded
prognosis.
At the conclusion of therapy, the patient
showed progress in many areas and his
parents were both thrilled with the dra-
matic transformation at the end of thera-
py. Increased ability to make eye contact
was observed as well as improvement in
his behavior and attention. He no longer
had problems seeing the computer and
had better visual attention. His mother
expressed that he seemed like a different
Figure 1.
child altogether; he was more observant,
Journal of Behavioral Optometry Volume 21/2010/Number 2/Page 41
independent and aware of his surround- shown to be quite effective for a number counteract gravity and maintain stability.
ings. The clinical findings after comple- of visual dysfunctions.36,37 However, the The visual-motor experiences that are ac-
tion of VT are summarized in Table 2. efficacy of VT in the DD population is quired will then enable the child to accu-
Marked improvements in ocular motility not well established. Consequently, many rately localize targets. Bilateral integra-
control were seen at the end of therapy, practitioners may not consider individuals tion and coordination are essential parts
showing an overall developmental gain of with moderate to significant DD as candi- of this process and enable a child to sense
three years. Near visual acuity improved dates for VT.38 This case demonstrates the right from left and fluidly move through
to 20/20 OD, OS and OU. Pursuit eye error of that assumption. space. Once the child can use vision to
movements showed profound improve- There are very few reports in the literature guide their movements, when the body
ment with NSUCO score age equivalent regarding the efficacy of VT in special is centered and stabilized, fixation and
of roughly eight years. The full pursuit populations. Duckman documented im- accurate eye movement can develop. If
rotations were able to be completed with provement in nine patients with cerebral the child has not adequately progressed
moderate accuracy with very few head palsy after VT for OMD, accommoda- through these stages, they will have dif-
movements and no torso movements. Sac- tive insufficiency, and visual perceptual ficulty remediating poor eye movements.
cadic eye movements also improved with skills.39 All patients showed improved Since DD typically includes delays in mo-
NSUCO score age equivalent of approxi- eye movements and most showed im- tor development, these patients frequently
mately eight years. The patient was able provement in other visual skills. Aside benefit from gross motor activities inte-
to complete the NSUCO cycles with mod- from this study, there is little evidence in grated into the VT program. The patient
erate accuracy, minimal head movements the literature that represents the potential was observed to have poor coordination
and no torso involvement. The DEM test for improvement in patients with DD. and balance, especially during eye move-
was significantly better; although the ver- Some practitioners think that individu- ments. If he was standing and asked to
tical time component did not change, the als may simply outgrow their poor visual make a slow pursuit, he would recruit his
horizontal component and the number of skills and catch up with their peers; this is whole body such that he almost fell over.
errors made was reduced by almost half. not the case. Tassinari conducted a retro- After it was recognized that this patient
This gives evidence that while the ocular- spective study showing that OMD did not had severely deficient gross motor coor-
motor skills were improved, the automa- improve if left untreated.40 Woodhouse dination and body awareness, these skills
ticity problem remained. The resulting et al showed that in young Downs syn- were addressed as a foundation for reha-
age equivalent on the DEM was age six to drome patients, accommodative skills do bilitation of his oculomotor system. A list
seven years. Fixation duration increased not improve with age.10 The search of the of gross motor and oculomotor activities
to seven to eight seconds and initiation literature indicates that the best method to utilized to encourage bilateral integration,
latency was no longer seen. Fixation ac- address these visual problems in the gen- body awareness and visual motor integra-
curacy was very good with minimal small eral population is through VT. There is tion can be found in Table 3.
saccadic intrusions. Stereoacuity reached no evidence that patients with DD would Vision Therapy for Individuals
20 seconds of arc. The NRA and PRA nor- not benefit from VT as well. If the patient with Developmental Delay
malized to +2.75 and -2.50 respectively. is not a good candidate for VT because of In general, VT has been shown to be ef-
While some of the tests of visual percep- physical or mental limitations, lens pre- fective for a variety of conditions in a
tion improved, others did not. The tests scriptions (e.g. bifocal for accommoda- wide range of different populations.27,36,37
that improved were: Piaget Left/Right tive insufficiency) should be considered VT has also been shown to improve
Awareness (age 11 equivalent), Jordan to provide them the best vision for their quality of life.41,42 There is no reason to
Left/Right Reversal (age 10 equivalent) daily activities.5 Treatment of these visual believe that patients with DD cannot de-
and the Monroe Visual Three (age nine conditions can make a significant impact rive the same benefits from VT as other
equivalent). For all of these tests he im- on the quality of life of the individual and patients. Modifications to accommodate
proved to near age equivalent. There were their learning potential.41,42 the patients specific needs are often nec-
no significant improvements with the Motor Control in Visual essary. Also, progress in therapy may be
Beery VMI, Visual Manipulation and the Development slower depending on the physical limita-
MVPT. Moderate progress was observed Many optometrists recognize the im- tions (motor and cognitive) of the patient
in bilateral coordination and arm/leg coor- portance of motor development in vi- in question.
dination during therapy, although this area sion.14,43-45 Often, in order to treat the fine Treatment of OMD and other visual dys-
will need continuing rehabilitation. These motor component, poor gross motor coor- functions in a patient with DD may require
results correlate well with the behavioral dination must first be addressed. Ideally some slight modifications to traditional
and functional changes reported by his this is done through co-management with therapy methods. Each patient is unique
parents at the conclusion of therapy. At- an occupational therapist, but visual mo- in their disability and often creativity is
tention, visual awareness, tracking and tor activities can also be incorporated into employed to alter activities or invent new
visual perception improved dramatically the VT program.46 ones. OMD activities should focus on
both subjectively and objectively. Taub et al indicates the relationship be- accuracy, eye-hand-body coordination,
DISCUSSION tween motor development and eye move- rhythm and automaticity. Starting thera-
VT for the treatment of OMD has been ments as follows.47 Motor coordination py with monocular activities often results
shown to be an effective form of reha- starts as the child learns to stabilize his in better control with gradual transition
bilitation in children and often improves body in space with basic muscle control. to binocular therapy. Age appropriate
reading skills.26,34,35 Overall, VT has been Then balance and centration is learned to elimination of head and body movements

Volume 21/2010/Number 2/Page 42 Journal of Behavioral Optometry


Table 3. Vision Therapy Activities for in Vision Development had a greater pro-
OMD and Developmental Delay portion of lectures with 16% of lectures
Activity Description devoted to special populations. The dis-
parity between the prevalence of DD and
Body awareness and bilateral integration
the amount of optometric education dedi-
Angels in the Lying on ground tap limb and patient has to move only that limb. Start homologous (ex cated to this population is striking.
snow both arms), then monolateral (one arm) then ipsilateral (ex R arm and R leg) then contra-
lateral (ex R arm and L leg). Progress to standing angels in the snow. CONCLUSION
Pointer dog On hands and knees, balance with one arm or leg elevated at a time, progress to balance The patient presented with deficient motor
with opposite arm and leg elevated. and visual efficiency skills. He was not
Swimming in Lying on stomach, move arms and legs in swimming motion including head turning to side. visually guided, and instead was stuck
place Start with arms or legs only, then move ipsilateral limbs forward, then move contralateral in the motor development stage. Without
limbs forward (Alexander has excellent description). a structured learning environment for vi-
Walking rail Start walking straight line on the ground, then walking rail with aid, and progress to walking sual-motor development, it is likely that
heel-toe on walking rail. very little improvement would have been
Hopscotch Encourage good balance on one foot and alternate hopping. possible without intervention. The visual
Chalkboard Chalk in each hand, child draws circles with arms moving symmetrically then reciprocally. motor and bilateral integration activities
circles provided in VT gave him the gross mo-
Windshield Draw lines between two targets, first symmetrical motion then reciprocal motion. tor foundation upon which to develop
wipers appropriate eye movements. Creative
Balloon, ball or Catch with both hands, then catch with one hand, then catch with R or L hand. modification of traditional VT techniques
ring toss allowed this patient to excel in his visual
Jumping jacks First arms or legs only, then arms and legs. efficiency and visual perception skills to
Soldier crawl Crawl on elbows and knees. age appropriate level.
Given the infrequency of these reports
Pursuits
in the literature, the prevailing thought is
Marble in pan Roll marble in pie pan slowly while patient tracks marble. that individuals with DD have a reduced
Marsden Ball Start by lying on the floor, bean bags around head to eliminate head movements. Progress potential to improve their visual skills,
to sitting, then standing, then balance board. Use sticker to make target interesting, ask therefore extra effort should not be ex-
questions about sticker.
pended to increase their abilities. On the
Marble roll Roll marble across table, patient catches it in cup.
contrary, this case demonstrates the good
Rotating Follow hole with peg for one full rotation before putting peg into hole success that can be seen with special pop-
Pegboard
ulations through VT. Patients with delays
Saccades may not reach an age equivalent levels
Penlights Use small light or toy on penlight, patient has to look at lighted target. Verbal feedback on in their visual efficiency skills and visu-
saccades accuracy of eye movements is helpful. al perception abilities and should not be
Sticker Column of simple stickers 5-8 apart, patient has to fixate each sticker across row and compared to age norms. They can, how-
saccades identify name or color of sticker ever, make significant improvements, of-
Groffman Start with easy lines that do not cross, allow patient to draw on top of lines at first. Progress ten gaining years of developmental skills
tracing to more difficult designs. that greatly improve their capability for
Hart chart -Start with 2 columns of letters, patient reads across. Add number of columns, progress to activities of daily living. The parents of
using whole hart chart. individuals with DD are appreciative for
-Near/Far Hart chart rock, start using small section of chart any advancement that can be made in the
Pegboard Copy pattern from another pegboard, then from pattern. lives of their children.
Tracking Michigan tracking, number tracking, hidden pictures, connect-the-dots, etc Patients with DD have an increased need
worksheets for health care and are often overlooked
Adapted from reference 15 and 45. by eyecare professionals. Optometrists
with a developmental perspective are the
during oculomotor activities is of primary types of patients.5,48,49 Given that the ideal vision care providers to evaluate and
concern to gain fine motor control, em- prevalence of DD in the general popula- treat these types of patients. VT with a
phasizing tracking with the eyes and not tion may be as high as 13.8%, it is likely motor-based developmental approach is
the body. that optometrists will routinely encounter often best when treating these patients.
Unfortunately, patients with DD tend to patients with DD and consequent visual Unfortunately, there is a lack of literature
be underserved when it comes to health efficiency problems. that adequately demonstrates the success
care, including vision care.5,6 The reason A survey of the literature and lectures that VT can provide with special popula-
for this lack of care may be due to a va- from 2001-2007 by Sands et al revealed tions. Although not all patients are ideal
riety of reasons including access to care, that only 0.3% of lectures at the American candidates for VT due to cognitive and
transportation, and locating a practitioner Academy of Optometry addressed special motor limitations, the developmental
who is willing and able to accommodate populations.49 Lectures in the same time optometrist should give each individual
patients with DD. Optometrists who have frame at the American Optometric Asso- consideration for any services that may
a developmental or behavioral approach ciation devoted only 0.9% of lectures to improve their quality of life. Published
are the best trained providers to treat these this subject. The College of Optometrists
Journal of Behavioral Optometry Volume 21/2010/Number 2/Page 43
literature on the prognosis and efficacy of 12 Newsham D, Knox PC, Cooke RW. Oculomotor 31. Lowrey RW. Handbook of Diagnostic Tests for
VT in special populations is critical to in- control in children who were born very prema- the Developmental Optometrist. Santa Ana: Op-
turely. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:2595- tometric Extension Program Foundation,
crease awareness in the optometric com- 601. 32. Getman GN, Henderson C, Marcus S. The Visual
munity. As optometrists, we are obligated 13. Duckman RH. Development of a normal child. Manipulation Test. Aptos, CA: Efficient Seeing
to provide each patient with all treatment In: Duckman RH, ed. Visual Development, di- Publications, 1976.
agnosis, and treatment of the pediatric patient. 33. Colarusso RD, Hammell DD. Motor Free Vision
options that would benefit them and refer Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Perception Test Novato, CA: Academic Therapy
to the appropriate provider when neces- 2006. Publications, 2003.
sary. The potential positive impact of VT 14. Suchoff IB. Visual-Spatial Development in the 34. Young BS, Pollard T, Paynter S, Cox RB. Ef-
on a childs life is immense and highly re- Child: An Optometric Theoretical and Clinical fect of eye exercises in improving control of eye
Approach. New York State University of New movements during reading. J Optom Vis Dev
warding for the child, the parents and the York Print Shop and Graphic Arts Department. 1982;13:4-7.
practitioner. 3rd Ed., 1987. 35. Kulp M, Schmidt P. Effect of oculomotor and
15. Maples WC. Ocular motility therapy. In: Press other visual skills on reading performance: A lit-
Acknowledgments LJ, ed. Applied concepts in Vision Therapy. erature review. Optom Vis Sci 1996;73:283-92.
Special thanks to Drs. Esther Han, Ro- Santa Ana, CA: Optometric Extension Program 36. The 1986/1987 Future of Visual Development/
chelle Mozlin, Deborah Lee, Diane Ad- Foundaiton, 2008. Performance Task Force. Special Report: The ef-
amczyk, and Paul Hulse for their guidance 16. Scheiman M, Wick B. Eye Movement Disorders. ficacy of optometric vision therapy. J Am Optom
In: Scheiman M, Wick B, eds. Clinical Manage- Assoc 1988;59:95-105.
on this publication. ment of Binocular Vision. Philadelphia: Lippin- 38. Cuiffreda KJ. The scientific basis for and efficacy
Sources cott Williams & Wilkins, 2002:370-91. of optometric vision therapy in nonstrabismic ac-
a. Optometric Extension Program Foundation 17. Maples WC. Oculomotor dysfunctions: Classi- commodative and vergence disorders. Optometry
1921 East Carnegie Ave. fication of saccadic and pursuit deficiencies. In: 2002;73:735-62.
Santa Ana, CA 92706 Press LJ, ed. Applied concepts in Vision Therapy. 38. Maino DM. Special populations and optometry,
949-250-8070 Santa Ana, CA: Optometric Extension Program editorial. Optom Ed 2002;27:38-39.
www.oepf.org Foundaiton, 2008. 39. Duckman RH. Effectiveness of visual training on
b. Bernell VTP 18. Maples WC, Ficklin TW. A preliminary study a population of cerebral palsied children. J Am
4016 N Home Street of the oculomotor skills of learning disabled, Optom Assoc 1980;51:607-14.
Mishawaka, IN 46545 gifted, and normal children. J Optom Vis Dev 40. Tassinari JT. Untreated oculomotor dysfunction.
800-348-2225 1989;20:9-13. Optom Vis Dev 2007;38:121-24.
19. Ciuffreda KJ, Rutner D, Kapoor N, Suchoff IB, 41. Cook DL. VT and quality of life. J Optom Vision
REFERENCES et al. VT for oculomotor dysfunction in acquired Develop 1995;26:205-11.
1. Rosenberg SA, Zhang D, Robinson CC. Preva- brain injury: a retrospective analysis. Optometry 42. Harris P, Gormley L. Changes in scores on the
lence of developmental delays and participation 2008;79:18-22. COVD quality of life assessment before and
in early intervention services for young children. 20. Eden GF, Stein JF, Wood HM, Wood FB. Differ- after VT: a multi-office study. J Behav Optom
Pediatrics 2008;121:e1503-e09. ences in eye movements and reading problems 2007;18:43-47.
2. Camp BW, Broman SH, Nichols PL, Leff M. in dyslexic and normal children. Vision Res 43. Getman GN. How to Develop Your Childs Intel-
Maternal and neonatal risk factors for mental re- 1994;34:1345-58. ligence. Santa Ana, CA: Optometric Extension
tardation: Defining the at-risk child. Early Hum 21. Maples WC, Ficklin T. Comparison of eye move- Program Foundaiton, 1992.
Dev 1998;50:159-73. ment skills between above average and below 44. Getman GN. Vision: Its role and integrations in
3. Simpson GA, Colpe L, Greenspan S. Measuring average readers. J Behav Optom 1990;1:87-91. learning processes. J Learn Disabil 1981;14:577-
functional developmental delay in infants and 22. Helsen L, Maples WC. The optometric evalua- 80.
young children: prevalence rates from the NHIS- tion of adult females who are participating in 45. Alexander C. Optometric visual trainingGross
D. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2003;17:68-80. a remedial reading program. J Behav Optom motor activities. Behavioural Optometry 1991;
4. Boyle CA, Decoufle P, Yeargin-Allsopp M. Prev- 1994;5:87-90. 3:272-76.
alence and health impact of developmental dis- 23. Maples WC, Atchley J, Ficklin T. Northeastern 46. Hellerstein LF, Fishman B. Vision therapy and
abilities in US children. Pediatrics 1993;93:399- State University College of Optometrys oculo- occupational therapyAn integrated approach. J
403. motor norms. J Behav Optom 1992;3:143-50. Behav Optom 1999;4:22-30.
5. Woodhouse, JM. Investigating and managing the 24. Garzia RP, Richman JE, Nicholson SB, Gaines 47. Taub MB, Mahaphon TK, Rodena J. A devel-
child with special needs. Ophthal Physiol Opt CS. A new visual-verbal saccade test: the De- opmental approach to congenital ocular motor
1998;18:147-52. velopmental Eye Movement test (DEM). J Am apraxia: Case report and literature review. Optom
6. Block SS, Beckerman SA, Berman PE. Vision Optom Assoc 1990;61:124-35. Vis Dev 2005;36:99-107.
profile of the athletes of the 1995 Special Olym- 25. Tassinari JT, DeLand P. Developmental Eye 48. Maino DM, Block S. Diagnosis and manage-
pics World Summer Games. J Am Optom Assoc Movement test: Reliability and symptomatology. ment of special populations: The role of the de-
1997;68:699-708. Optometry 2005;76:387-99. velopmental optometrist. J Optom Vision Dev
7. Nielsen LS, Skov L, Jensen H. Visual dysfunc- 26. Rounds BB, Manley CW, Norris RH. The effect 1994;25:219-21.
tions and ocular disorders in children with devel- of oculomotor training on reading efficiency. J 49. Sands W, Taub M, Maino DM. Limited re-
opmental delay: II. Aspects of refractive errors, Am Optom Assoc 1991;62:92-99. search and education on special populations in
strabismus and contrast sensitivity. Acta Oph- 27. Bonilla-Warford N, Allison C. A review of the optometry and ophthalmology. Optom Vis Dev
thalmol Scand 2007;85:149-56. efficacy of oculomotor VT in improving reading 2008;39:60-61.
8. Duckman RH. The incidence of visual anomalies skills. J Optom Vis Dev 2004;35:108-15.
in a population of cerebral palsied children. J Am 28. Scheiman MM, Gallaway M. : Visual informa-
Optom Assoc 1979;50:1013-16. tion prcessing: Assesment and diagnosis. In:
9. Leat SJ. Reduced accommodation in chil- Scheiman MM, Rouse MW, eds. Optometric
dren with cerebral palsy. Ophthal Physiol Opt Management of Learning-Related Vision Prob-
1996;16:385-90. lems. St. Louis: Mosby ,1994: Chapter 11. Corresponding Author:
10. Woodhouse JM, Pakeman VH, Saunders KJ, 29. Jordan BT. Jordan Left-Right Reversal Test
Parker M, et al. Visual acuity and accommoda- Manual. Novato, CA:Academic Therapy Publi- Leanna M Dudley, O.D.
tion in infants and young children with Downs cations, 1990. 2301 Ford St.
Syndrome. J Intellect Disability Res 1996;40:49- 30. Berry KE, Beery MNA. The Berry-Buktenica Golden, CO 80401
55. Developm,en tal Test of Visual-Moto Integration
With supplemental Developmental Test of Visual
leannadudley@gmail.com
11. Woodhouse JM, Meades JS, Leat SJ, Saunders
KJ. Reduced accommodation in children with Perception and Motor Coordination. Minneapo- Date accepted for publication:
Down Syndrome. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci lis: Pearson Assessments, 2006. March 24, 2010
1993;34:2382-87.

Volume 21/2010/Number 2/Page 44 Journal of Behavioral Optometry


APPENDIX
North State University College of Optometry (NSUCO) Oculomotor norms

NSUCO PURSUITS NSUCO SACCADES


Procedure Procedure
Instruct the patient to follow the target. Move the target in a Instruct the patient to look at the indicated target. Hold two tar-
circle of 20cm diameter at a distance of 40cm from the patient. gets 20cm apart at a distance of 40cm from the patient. Ask the
Do 2 rotations clockwise and 2 rotations counterclockwise. patient to look from one to the other for 5 complete cycles.
Scoring criterion Scoring Criterion
Ability Ability
1. Cannot complete rotation 1. No attempt is made to perform the task to 1 cycle
2. Completes rotation but not 1 full rotation 2. Completes 2 cycles
3. Completes 1 rotation but not 2 rotations 3. Completes 3 cycles
4. Completes 2 rotations in one direction but not the other 4. Completes 4 cycles
5. Completes 2 rotations in each direction 5. Completes 5 cycles
Accuracy Accuracy
1. No attempt to follow the target to 10 refixations 1. Gross over or undershooting is noted
2. Refixations 4-10 times 2. Large to moderate over or undershooting is noted
3. Refixations 2-4 times 3. Constant slight over or undershooting noted
4. Refixations 2 or less times 4. Intermittent or slight over or undershooting noted
5. No refixations 5. No over or undershooting noted
Head and Body Movement Head and Body Movement
1. Gross movement of head/body 1. Gross movement of head/body
2. Large to moderate movement of the head/body 2. Large to moderate movement of the head/body
3. Consistent slight movement of the head/body 3. Consistent slight movement of the head/body
4. Intermittent slight movement of the head/body 4. Intermittent slight movement of the head/body
5. No movement of the head/body 5. No movement of the head/body

Normal pursuit eye movement criterion by age Normal saccadic eye movement criterion by age
and gender and gender
Ability Accuracy Head Mvmt BodyMvmt Ability Accuracy Head Mvmt BodyMvmt
Age M F M F M F M F Age M F M F M F M F
5 4 5 2 3 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 3 3 2 2 3 4
6 4 5 2 3 2 3 3 4 6 5 5 3 3 2 3 3 4
7 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 4 7 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 4
8 5 5 3 3 3 3 4 4 8 5 5 3 3 3 3 4 4
9 5 5 3 4 3 3 4 4 9 5 5 3 3 3 3 4 4
10 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 10 5 5 3 3 3 3 4 5
11 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 11 5 5 3 3 3 4 4 5
12 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 12 5 5 3 3 3 4 4 5
13 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 13 5 5 3 3 3 4 5 5
>14 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 >14 5 5 4 3 3 4 5 5

Journal of Behavioral Optometry Volume 21/2010/Number 2/Page 45

S-ar putea să vă placă și