[photo-3d] Re: Which eye do you close?, Re: Dominant Eye

["Abram Klooswyk" <abram.klooswyk@xxxxxx>]

Tom Deering asked a question to be answered off list, 
but inevitably a thread emerged, and Bob Maxey wrote,
Oct 5, 2000 :
>So is there any actual science behind all these comments 
>and suppositions or are you all just guessing? 
>There must be some specific stereo tests that can be 
>performed to determine if you are "Dominant" in 
>either eye.
Gabriel Jacob searched the WWW and found some stuff.

However, the ocular dominance issue is not easy at all,
in any case there is a large volume of literature on
the subject. When you visit the site of the (USA) 
National Library of Medicine at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
and you enter "ocular dominance", you get 1070 items
(no typo: thousand and seventy!).

One of the abstracts is at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/
entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=
PubMed&list_uids=10547971&dopt=Abstract
(on one line, but here word wrapped) 

Robison SE and others wrote on: "Hand-eye dominance in 
a population with mental handicaps: prevalence
and a comparison of methods" in the Journal of the
Americam Optometrical Assoc 1999 Sep;70(9):563-570.

You can read the abstract on the web. A few quotes:
>>The primary purpose of this study was to investigate 
hand-eye dominance in a population with mental 
handicaps and how the distribution compared with the 
general population.
(...)
Two methods were used to determine eye dominance: 
the hole-in-the-hand method and the eye dominance wand. 
Hand dominance was determined by the subject's choice
of accepting hand. 
The sample was comprised of a population of 421 athletes 
participating in the 1997 Special Olympic Games in Toronto. 

RESULTS: The hole-in-the-hand method of eye dominance 
showed that 40.3% of this population exhibited crossed 
dominance. The eye dominance wand found crossed dominance 
in 36.6% of this population. The eye dominance wand 
demonstrated moderate agreement with the hole-in-the-hand 
method; however, there was some crossover of eye dominance 
between tests, when the tests were compared on a 
case-by-case basis. 
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence rate of this population of 
persons with mental handicaps agrees with the prevalence 
rates found by Robison et al., in which 41% of a general 
nonhandicapped population demonstrated crossed dominance. 
(...).<<

About baseball players you can read more in another abstract,
"Major review: ocular sighting dominance: a review and a 
study of athletic proficiency and eye-hand dominance in a 
collegiate baseball team." Binocul Vis Strabismus Q 1998 
Summer-Winter;13(2 2nd Qtr):125-132.

>>Pitchers who were uncrossed eye-hand dominant were
distinctly more successful than crossed. Batters who were 
crossed eye-hand dominant were slightly more successful 
than uncrossed.<<

So what about stereographers?  Would there be a difference 
between stereoshooters and stereoviewers? :-)

However, Classe JG et al wrote in the J Am Optom Assoc 
1996 Feb;67(2):81-86: "Association between eye and hand 
dominance and hitting, fielding and pitching skill among 
players of the Southern Baseball League.'

>>Results indicate that there is no association between 
eye dominance, and hitting, fielding, or pitching skill 
in baseball.<<

Will George Themelis present statistical figures about 
crossed eye dominance and salon successes? 
We will wait and see :-)

Abram Klooswyk