Skip to main content
Log in

Visual impairment in hysteria

  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We have reviewed the charts of 45 neuro-ophthamological patients diagnosed with 79 monocular visual field or visual acuity losses secondary to non-organic etiology. Our aim was to determine the percentage of patients that have improvement in vision. As part of the protocol, all patients had magnetic resonance images, pattern visual evoked potentials, and flash electroretinography in addition to complete neuro-ophthalmological examinations. A single physician performed both the initial and follow-up examinations of all patients. Thirty-three percent of these patients had visual field defects only, 62% had both visual field defects and visual acuity defects, and 5% had only visual acuity defects. After organic disease was ruled out, all were given a timetable for recovery and clear reassurance regarding their prognoses for visual recovery. Seventy-eight percent of these patients showed improvement or were normal, while 22% showed no improvement. Younger patients without obvious psychiatric disorder had better prognoses than older patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Miller E. Hysteria: Its nature and explanation. Br J Clin Psychol 1987; 26: 163–73.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Weller M, Wiedemann P. Hysterical symptoms in ophthalmology. Doc Ophthalmol 1989; 73: 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Merskey H. The importance of hysteria. Brit J Psychiat 1986; 149: 23–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Harrington DO, Drake MV. The visual fields: Text and atlas of clinical perimetry. St Louis: CV Mosby, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Yamada S, Nomura M. Static screening perimetry in psychogenic visual disturbances. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1992; 33: 1226.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barris MC, Kaufman DI, Barberio D. Visual impairment in hysteria. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1992; 33: 1227.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Anderson DR. Perimetry with and without automation. St Louis: CV Mosby, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Yasuna ER. Hysterical amblyopia: Its differentiation from malingering. Am J Ophthalmol 1946; 29: 570–8.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sletteberg O, Berteisen T, Hovding G. The prognosis of patients with hysterical visual impairment. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1989; 67: 159–63.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kathol RG, Cox TA, Corbett JJ, Thompson HS. Functional visual loss: Follow-up of 42 cases. Arch Ophthalmol 1983; 101: 729–35.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rada RT, Meyer GG, Krill AE. Visual conversion reaction in children, I: Diagnosis. Psychosomatics 1969; 10: 23–8.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kathol RG, Cox TA, Corbett JJ, Thompson HS, Clancy J. Functional visual loss, II: Psychiatric aspects in 42 patients followed for 4 years. Psychol Med 1983; 13: 315–24.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Graefe A v. Über ein einfaches Mitte, Simulation einseitiger Amaurose zu entdecken, nebst Bemerkungen ueber die Pupillar-Kontraktion bei Erblindeten. Graefe's Arch Ophthalmol 1855; 2: 266–72. Cited in Weller and Wiedemann, 1989, pp. 10–11.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barris, M.C., Kaufman, D.I. & Barberio, D. Visual impairment in hysteria. Doc Ophthalmol 82, 369–382 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00161025

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00161025

Key words

Navigation