Talk:Ocular dominance

message: "Approximately two-thirds of the population is right-eye dominant"
I'm not completeky certain this is totally true... out of the 20 ppl I surveyed (sci project) 9 were 'right-eyed'(3 were lefties, 4 were righties, 2 were lefty turned righties) while 11 were 'left-eyed'(all were righties). I figured that if you're a lefty, then your right eye is dominant and when you're a righty, your left eye is dominant (with a few exceptions)<=cross-dominance. Is there some kind of explanation...?... ~Sushi 07:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: This is out of my area of competence, so i'll leave it to someone
else to do: 
1) in the last sentence before the References, should
"Forced choice" tests dominance,
have an "of" after tests?
2) Is this statement the wrong way round?
In those with anisometropic myopia (i.e. different amounts of nearsightedness between the two eyes), the dominant eye has been found to be the one with more myopia[11][12].
(My dominant eye is the less myopic, but maybe that's just randomness.)
Coughinink 07:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the first point, you are correct that "of" was missing. Regarding your second point, the sentence is correct as written. One of the sources ( helps to explain why that is. -AED 16:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As Coughinink suggested, I think your finding could be attributed to randomness and sample size. I'm not sure that your personal experience of n=1 is sufficient to refute the two studies referenced in the article. -AED 16:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  errors maybe? 

message: My right eye is dominant towards the red spectrum. My left eye tends towards the green/blue.
Similarly, what about distance dominance?
My right eye is dominant for far distances while my left is dominant at near ranges.
Is my distance dominance due to chromatic dominance, since indoor fluorescent lighting tends toward green? So indoors, my right eye becomes lazy. Have any of you optometrists anything to write about chromatic and distance dominance?
Miamidot 15:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about spectrum and distance dominance?

message: Just want to know.35.11.207.145 (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Addressed currently in lead paragraph, responsibility is shared between them.  69.144.93.138 (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which side of each eye is Controlled By Each Hemisphere? 

message: ==== Numbers 1-4 are exactly the same method, only with different shapes used to aim: ====
# Small opening with both hands
# Pointed finger with one hand 
# Circle with one hand
# Card with a hole in it
OK, I'm the guy guilty of redundancy.  I used the above as examples.  George's rewrite is perfectly acceptable to me.  But, it still begs the questions: "Do other's not have a dominant eye?  If so, to what percentage of the population does this apply?"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamfgo (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition in 'Determination of ocular dominance' 

message: # Small opening with both hands
# Pointed finger with one hand 
# Circle with one hand
# Card with a hole in it
OK, I'm the guy guilty of redundancy.  I used the above as examples.  George's rewrite is perfectly acceptable to me.  But, it still begs the questions: "Do other's not have a dominant eye?  If so, to what percentage of the population does this apply?"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamfgo (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 1-4 are exactly the same method, only with different shapes used to aim: 

message: The observer holds up some kind of reticle at arms length, then with both eyes open views a distant object through the reticle. The observer then closes each eye in turn; when the dominant eye is closed, the observer will loose sight of the object. Alternatively, the observer can draw the reticle back to the head, where it should naturally touch one eye (the dominant eye). Common rectiles used are: A small opening made with two hands (Miles), a pointed finger (Porta), a circle made with one hand, or a card with a hole in it (Dolman).
--George Makepeace (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest rewrite along the lines of: 

message: I understand that you "learn" it as a child. But what can be learned, can be unlearned. Is it possible to make my other eye dominant? e.g. by covering my dominant eye and using only the other one???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.178.160 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Addressed in Treatment section of current version, that's the intention of eye patch treatments.  69.144.93.138 (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you change the ocular dominance?  

message: This is me saying it in a kind way, this is unscientific and should be disclaimed as such.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvermirai (talk • contribs) 15:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing pseudoscientific to it, as you don't need expensive laser interferometry to illustrate the effect.  It simply lets you see for yourself which eye is doing most of the seeing of distant objects.  Just as tightening a hole you'd see through with your hands can illustrate the greater depth of field of pinpoint apertures versus wide ones.  Hypothesis, experiment, results, etc., all consistent with repeatable research and principles, and it works for those with eye dominance.  69.144.93.138 (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unscientific. 

message: It appears that a lack of ocular dominance might be the ultimate underlying cause of dyslexia, according to https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/18/dyslexia-scientists-claim-cause-of-condition-may-lie-in-the-eyes?CMP=fb_gu  As unconfirmed as this may be, I would think this deserves some mention in the article; however, I would think it best to have an expert put it in.  In the mean time how many of the people who mentioned that they do not have ocular dominance (above) happen to have dyslexia?
:Obviously expertise would be the best-case scenario, but in the meantime I don't think a brief mention would violate WP:MEDRS and it appears to be about science and not about medicine. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dyslexia 

message: Why is one of the 'see also' articles about right- vs left-side traffic patterns?   I see zero connection. Should it be removed? Coldbrewed (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also?! 

message: The edit by Anonymous User (2603:9001:6405:F600:D170:A841:4B37:DC53) on 22 June 2021 changed the 70% in the article to 69.42%, a high possible reference to joke and parody. The edit also has no reference backing up so is highly probable of vandalism.
Currently for an unknown reason I cannot login to my account and wouldn't want to change it anonymously so if anyone can look into it it would be greatly appreciated.
(idk why the formal tone I used lol, it just feels like it would suit the best) 82.114.53.246 (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: wait got my account now, I will do it myself (at least try to) Qty10 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  High Possibility Vandalism (70% to 69.42% edit)