PURPOSE: Because previous studies have reported conflicting evidence, we examined a possible difference in stereoacuity between distance and near, in particular using a random-dot display. We compared distance and near stereoacuities using identical presentation formats at the two distances. METHODS: Twelve young adults with low, stable refractive errors and apparently normal binocular vision participated. Stereoacuity was determined with a Mentor B-VAT II using Random Dot E (BVRDE) and Contour Circles (BVC) stereograms presented on a standard monitor (25 x 19.3 cm) at 518 cm (distance-habitual) and a small monitor (2.0 x 1.4 cm) at 40 cm (near-habitual). To examine whether accommodation-convergence influenced stereoacuity, testing at 40 cm was repeated with the addition of +2.50 DS lenses and base-in prisms (near-compensated) that created the same accommodation and convergence demands as for distance-habitual viewing. RESULTS: The two stereotests produced similar findings. Stereoacuity was not significantly different for distance-habitual and near-habitual viewing of the BVRDE (p = 0.43) and BVC (p = 0.79) stereotests. Near-compensated stereoacuity was worse than near-habitual (BVRDE, p = 0.005; BVC, p = 0.004) and distance-habitual (BVRDE, p = 0.05; BVC, p = 0.003) for both stereotests. Because near stereoacuity with yoked prisms (control condition) was the same as without prism (near-habitual), prism-induced optical distortions cannot account for the difference. CONCLUSIONS: Stereoacuity was not different at distance and near under normal viewing conditions. The conflict between subject knowledge of target proximity and the optically-induced relaxation of accommodation and convergence, or an inaccurate accommodative-convergence response, might have caused poor near-compensated stereoacuity.
PURPOSE: Because previous studies have reported conflicting evidence, we examined a possible difference in stereoacuity between distance and near, in particular using a random-dot display. We compared distance and near stereoacuities using identical presentation formats at the two distances. METHODS: Twelve young adults with low, stable refractive errors and apparently normal binocular vision participated. Stereoacuity was determined with a Mentor B-VAT II using Random Dot E (BVRDE) and Contour Circles (BVC) stereograms presented on a standard monitor (25 x 19.3 cm) at 518 cm (distance-habitual) and a small monitor (2.0 x 1.4 cm) at 40 cm (near-habitual). To examine whether accommodation-convergence influenced stereoacuity, testing at 40 cm was repeated with the addition of +2.50 DS lenses and base-in prisms (near-compensated) that created the same accommodation and convergence demands as for distance-habitual viewing. RESULTS: The two stereotests produced similar findings. Stereoacuity was not significantly different for distance-habitual and near-habitual viewing of the BVRDE (p = 0.43) and BVC (p = 0.79) stereotests. Near-compensated stereoacuity was worse than near-habitual (BVRDE, p = 0.005; BVC, p = 0.004) and distance-habitual (BVRDE, p = 0.05; BVC, p = 0.003) for both stereotests. Because near stereoacuity with yoked prisms (control condition) was the same as without prism (near-habitual), prism-induced optical distortions cannot account for the difference. CONCLUSIONS: Stereoacuity was not different at distance and near under normal viewing conditions. The conflict between subject knowledge of target proximity and the optically-induced relaxation of accommodation and convergence, or an inaccurate accommodative-convergence response, might have caused poor near-compensated stereoacuity.