[Skip to Navigation]
August 1953


Author Affiliations

From the Eye Clinic of the University of Amsterdam; Dr. A. Hagedoorn, Director.

AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1953;50(2):179-183. doi:10.1001/archopht.1953.00920030184006

IT SEEMS that Worth1 considered fusion essentially as a mental process and made no distinction between the motor part of the fusion (the fusional movements) and the mental process of uniting two uniocular impressions into one single impression. This distinction was clearly indicated by Roelofs,2 who also pointed out that binocular vision and fusion are different words to designate the same thing. Binocular vision is fusion, and this fusion should be differentiated into motor fusion (fusional movements) and sensory fusion, or the process of uniting the two retinal images into a unitary perception. The same distinction between motor and sensory fusion was recently stressed by Burian.3 The work of Chavasse4 has largely contributed to the present concept of binocular vision and fusion as reflexes, or, rather, as conditioned reflexes. This concept has been elaborated most completely along ontogenetic lines by Zeeman.5

When we apply this

Add or change institution