Effectiveness of a binocular video game vs placebo video game for improving visual functions in older children, teenagers, and adults with amblyopia: A randomized clinical trial

Tina Y. Gao, Cindy X. Guo, Raiju J. Babu, Joanna M. Black, William R. Bobier, Arijit Chakraborty, Shuan Dai, Robert F. Hess, Michelle Jenkins, Yannan Jiang, Lisa S. Kearns, Lionel Kowal, Carly Siu Yin Lam, Peter C.K. Pang, Varsha Parag, Roberto Pieri, Rajkumar Nallour Raveendren, Jayshree South, Sandra Elfride Staffieri, Angela WadhamNatalie Walker, Benjamin Thompson, Simon Clavagnier, Daniel Spiegel, Ka Ching Ko, Geoffrey Chu, Lily Chan, Mabel Leung, Yee Mui Kwok, Rifeng Ding, Colin Howe, Taina Von Blaramberg, Joanna Michie, John Faafetai Faatui, Colleen Ng, Stuart L. Uren, Stephen J. Boswell

Research output: Journal article publicationJournal articleAcademic researchpeer-review

95 Citations (Scopus)


Importance: Binocular amblyopia treatment using contrast-rebalanced stimuli showed promise in laboratory studies and requires clinical trial investigation in a home-based setting. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of a binocular video game with a placebo video game for improving visual functions in older children and adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Binocular Treatment of Amblyopia Using Videogames clinical trial was a multicenter, double-masked, randomized clinical trial. Between March 2014 and June 2016, 115 participants 7 years and older with unilateral amblyopia (amblyopic eye visual acuity, 0.30-1.00 logMAR; Snellen equivalent, 20/40-20/200) due to anisometropia, strabismus, or both were recruited. Eligible participants were allocated with equal chance to receive either the active or the placebo video game, with minimization stratified by age group (child, age 7 to 12 years; teenager, age 13 to 17 years; and adult, 18 years and older). Interventions: Falling-blocks video games played at home on an iPod Touch for 1 hour per day for 6 weeks. The active video game had game elements split between eyes with a dichoptic contrast offset (mean [SD] initial fellow eye contrast, 0.23 [0.14]). The placebo video game presented identical images to both eyes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in amblyopic eye visual acuity at 6weeks. Secondary outcomes included compliance, stereoacuity, and interocular suppression. Participants and clinicians who measured outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. Results: Of the 115 included participants, 65 (56.5%) were male and 83 (72.2%) were white, and the mean (SD) age at randomization was 21.5 (13.6) years. There were 89 participants (77.4%) who had prior occlusion. The mean (SD) amblyopic eye visual acuity improved 0.06 (0.12) logMAR from baseline in the active group (n = 56) and 0.07 (0.10) logMAR in the placebo group (n = 59). The mean treatment difference between groups, adjusted for baseline visual acuity and age group, was -0.02 logMAR (95%CI, -0.06 to 0.02; P = .25). Compliance with more than 25%of prescribed game play was achieved by 36 participants (64%) in the active group and by 49 (83%) in the placebo group. At 6 weeks, 36 participants (64%) in the active group achieved fellow eye contrast greater than 0.9 in the binocular video game. No group differences were observed for any secondary outcomes. Adverse effects included 3 reports of transient asthenopia. Conclusions and Relevance: The specific home-based binocular falling-blocks video game used in this clinical trial did not improve visual outcomes more than the placebo video game despite increases in fellow eye contrast during game play. More engaging video games with considerations for compliance may improve effectiveness.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)172-181
Number of pages10
JournalJAMA Ophthalmology
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2018

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology


Dive into the research topics of 'Effectiveness of a binocular video game vs placebo video game for improving visual functions in older children, teenagers, and adults with amblyopia: A randomized clinical trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this