Related ResearchLaboratory of Sensorimotor Research (LSR) Multisensory Computation Laboratory Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute (SK) General References |
![]() |
Joel M Miller, PhD Lab Direction & Mangement |
![]() |
Kevin R Shieh, BS Pretty Much Anything That Needs Doing |
|
![]() |
Vanitha Sankaranarayanan, MS Realtime Programming |
|
Andrew H Clarke, PhD |
Ryan Davison, PhD |
|
|
Joseph L Demer, MD, PhD |
Paul DR Gamlin, PhD |
|
|
Angel M Pastor, PhD |
Dinesh K Pai, PhD |
|
|
Alan B Scott, MD |
Christine Wildsoet, OD, PhD |
|
|
Martin Wiesmair, DI(FH) |
Wu Zhou, PhD |
Letters published in IOVS regarding "Kyoung-Min Lee, Annie P Lai, James Brodale & Arthur Jampolsky (2007). Sideslip of the Medial Rectus Muscle during Vertical Eye Rotation. IOVS, 48 (10), 4527-4533":
Lee & Jampolsky begin their letter of reply by warmly thanking Klier & Angelaki for their "many thoughtful comments, expressed with expected civility", although Klier & Angelaki actually make very sharp accusations. They express "dismay" over Lee & Jampolsky's "erroneous summary and critique of [K&A's] recent work", their "misquoting of [K&A's] papers", their "misrepresentation of [K&A's] experiments", their "mistaken claims" belied by "even a simple scan" of published work, and their "blatant misquotes and condemnations of correct experiments". Klier & Angelaki quite properly conclude by urging that recent "progress should not be undone" by reports such as Lee & Jampolsky's. Lee & Jampolsky are much less generous toward Demer and me, berating us for "accusative impugning of motives ... unbefitting space in a reputable journal". Actually, as you can see, Demer takes an entirely scholarly approach in his discussion of their "four errors". Presumably, then, it is Demer's final section to which Lee & Jampolsky take umbrage, in which he characterizes the pulley controversy as a paradigm shift in the Kuhnian sense, and Lee & Jampolsky as adherents to the old paradigm. Kuhn's theory is a standard and completely respectable way to understand such a disconcerting scientific controversy as this. Finally, my own letter is highly critical of the evidence and arguments in Lee & Jampolsky's paper, but devoid of the ad-hominem attacks they nonetheless accuse me of making. I challenge Lee & Jampolsky to substantiate their allegation. My letter speaks only to their scientific work, and shows that it collapses due to its intrinsic lack of merit. How did such muddled, retrograde work enter the primary scientific literature? Considering the many fundamental scientific problems raised in the 3 critical letters, Lee & Jampolsky might have given some attention in their letter of reply to the following issues:
– JM Miller, June 2008 |
|
| Miller JM (2007a). Understanding and Misunderstanding Extraocular Muscle Pulleys. Journal of Vision, vol 7, num 11, art 10, pgs 1-15, http://journalofvision.org/7/11/10, doi:10.1167/7.11.10.
Miller JM (2006). Understanding & Misunderstanding EOM Pulleys – Grand Rounds at the Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, University of Iowa (Presentation PDF, 7.2MB. As evidence has mounted for the critical role of extraocular muscle (EOM) pulleys in normal ocular motility and disease, opposition to the notion has grown more strident. We review the stages through which pulley theory has developed, distinguishing passive, coordinated, weak differential, and strong differential pulley theories and focusing on points of controversy. There is overwhelming evidence that much of the eye's kinematics, once thought to require brainstem coordination of EOM innervations, is determined by orbital biomechanics. The main criticisms of pulley theory only apply to the strong differential theory, abandoned in 2002. Critiques of the notion of dual EOM insertions are shown to be mistaken. The role of smooth muscle and the issue of rotational noncommutativity are clarified. We discuss how pulley sleeves can be stabilized as required by the theory, noting that more work needs to be done in specifying the tissues involved. |
|
|
Miller JM, Rossi EA, Wiesmair M, Alexander DE & Gallo O (2006). Stability of gold bead tissue markers. Journal of Vision, vol 6, num 5, art 6, pgs 616-624, http://journalofvision.org/6/5/6/, doi:10.1167/6.5.6. A new soft tissue imaging method that uses tiny (~0.1 mm dia) gold beads as markers to visualize tissue movements with high spatial (~100 m) and moderate temporal (~100 ms) resolution. |
|
|
Neural Control of a Complex Oculomotor Plant – Invited Lecture by JM Miller at the Vision Sciences Research Center at the Univ of Alabama at Birmingham, 10 Sep 2004 (Presentation PDF, 2.7MB). |
|
|
EOM Co-Contraction: Theories & Data - Journal Club at S-K 13 Jul 2004 & Talk at UAB Vision Science Research Center 10 Sep 2004 by JM Miller (Presentation PDF, 1.5MB). InfoIcon illustrates dubious claim of horizontal rectus co-contraction in convergence. |
|
Bupivacaine Injection Treatment of Strabismus (PI: Alan B Scott) Existing treatments for strabismus rely on compensatory impairment of EOMs; we are harnessing the hypertrophic consequences of bupivacaine myotoxicity to directly strengthen them. Development of bupivacaine for controlled muscle strengthening would provide a unique and powerful tool for strabismus management, and would likely have value for treatment of muscle disorders beyond ophthalmology (Paper PDF, 0.3MB). |
||
|
EOM Forces & Neural Control of a Complex Oculomotor Plant Motor control issues raised by conflicts between classical motoneuron studies and physiologic EOM force measurements • Forces in convergence (Paper • Sample Data) |
||
|
Biomechanics of the eye, surrounding tissues and innervations • Computer model for researchers and clinicians |
||
|
||
|
Extraocular Tissue Architecture 3-D architecture of the extraocular space, distinguishing striated muscle, smooth muscle, collagen, elastin, and other tissues. Techniques include MRI, histochemistry and 3D reconstruction from distorted slices using hierarchical warping and intrinsic fiducials |