Literature DB >> 11587177

The moving Dynamic Random Dot Stereosize test: development, age norms, and comparison with the Frisby, Randot, and Stereo Smile tests.

S J Leat1, J S Pierre, S Hassan-Abadi, J Faubert.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the response of infants and children to the Moving Dynamic Random Dot Stereosize (MDRS) test and to collect cross-sectional age-related data.
METHODS: Sixty visually normal individuals were divided into four age groups: 0.5-<2, 2-<5, 5-<8, and 8-<20 years. Stereopsis was measured with the MDRS test on two occasions, plus the Frisby, Randot, or Stereo Smile tests, as was age appropriate.
RESULTS: All children aged >2 years and 80% of the children between ages 6 months and 2 years were able to perform the MDRS test on at least one occasion. Sixty percent of the 6-month to 2-year-old children were able to perform the Stereo Smile test on both occasions. Performance on the MDRS test improved with age up to 9 years. Improvement on the Frisby and Randot tests was seen in children aged up to 7 years. Mean and 95% confidence interval ranges for each test are given.
CONCLUSION: This study gives evidence that aspects of the visual system are not fully mature until age 7-9 years. The MDRS test is a visually demanding but cognitively simple test that shows potential for detecting visual anomalies in young children.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11587177     DOI: 10.3928/0191-3913-20010901-09

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus        ISSN: 0191-3913            Impact factor:   1.402


  9 in total

1.  Validation of dynamic random dot stereotests in pediatric vision screening.

Authors:  Anna Budai; András Czigler; Eszter Mikó-Baráth; Vanda A Nemes; Gábor Horváth; Ágota Pusztai; David P Piñero; Gábor Jandó
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-10-03       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Seeing the world dimly: the impact of early visual deficits on visual experience in schizophrenia.

Authors:  Joshua T Kantrowitz; Pamela D Butler; Isaac Schecter; Gail Silipo; Daniel C Javitt
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 9.306

3.  Test Re-Test Reliability and Validity of Different Visual Acuity and Stereoacuity Charts Used in Preschool Children.

Authors:  Diana Moganeswari; Jyothi Thomas; Krithica Srinivasan; George P Jacob
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2015-11-01

4.  Authors' response.

Authors:  Elise B Ciner; Gui-Shuang Ying; Marjean Taylor Kulp; Maureen G Maguire; Graham E Quinn; Deborah Orel-Bixler; Lynn A Cyert; Bruce Moore; Jiayan Huang
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 1.973

5.  Using Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) to Study Dynamic Stereoscopic Depth Perception.

Authors:  Laura M Ward; Gordon Morison; William A Simpson; Anita J Simmers; Uma Shahani
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 3.020

6.  Overestimation of stereo thresholds by the TNO stereotest is not due to global stereopsis.

Authors:  Kathleen Vancleef; Jenny C A Read; William Herbert; Nicola Goodship; Maeve Woodhouse; Ignacio Serrano-Pedraza
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 3.117

7.  Abnormal effective connectivity in visual cortices underlies stereopsis defects in amblyopia.

Authors:  Xia Chen; Meng Liao; Ping Jiang; Huaiqiang Sun; Longqian Liu; Qiyong Gong
Journal:  Neuroimage Clin       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 4.891

8.  Stereoacuity with Frisby and revised FD2 stereo tests.

Authors:  Iwo Bohr; Jenny C A Read
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Effect of age and stereopsis on a multiple-object tracking task.

Authors:  Marjolaine Plourde; Marie-Eve Corbeil; Jocelyn Faubert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.