Literature DB >> 31205911

The difference in stereoacuity testing: contour-based and random dot-based graphs at far and near distances.

Lingzhi Zhao1, Huang Wu2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Different methods to test stereopsis lead to different results. The aim of this study was to investigate the difference between stereoacuity tests using contour-based and random dot-based graphs at far and near distances.
METHODS: Thirty participants with normal visual acuity and stereopsis were recruited. Laptop equipment 3D shutter glasses were used to test distance stereoacuity and two 4K smartphones were used to test near stereoacuity with contour-based and random dot-based graphs.
RESULTS: No significant difference was found between contour-based and random-dot graphs regardless of the distance. Similarly, no significant difference between far and near distance was found for contour-based or random-dot graphs (Wilcoxon signed-rank test: P values were all >0.05). There was a high level of agreement between the methods using Bland-Altman statistical analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: In a population with normal stereopsis, the stereoacuity is stable regardless of the test graphs used (contour-based or random-dot based) or the test distance (far or near).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Stereopsis; computer; contour-based graphs; random dot-based graphs

Year:  2019        PMID: 31205911      PMCID: PMC6545306          DOI: 10.21037/atm.2019.03.62

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Transl Med        ISSN: 2305-5839


  17 in total

1.  Stereoacuity at distance and near.

Authors:  Bonita P H Wong; Russell L Woods; Eli Peli
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 1.973

2.  Intraexaminer repeatability and agreement in stereoacuity measurements made in young adults.

Authors:  Beatriz Antona; Ana Barrio; Isabel Sanchez; Enrique Gonzalez; Guadalupe Gonzalez
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 1.779

3.  An evaluation of the agreement between contour-based circles and random dot-based near stereoacuity tests.

Authors:  Sherry L Fawcett
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 1.220

4.  Reliability and validity of an automated computerized visual acuity and stereoacuity test in children using an interactive video game.

Authors:  Dae Joong Ma; Hee Kyung Yang; Jeong-Min Hwang
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 5.258

5.  Distance stereoacuity norms for the mentor B-VAT II-SG video acuity tester in young children and young adults.

Authors:  C Yildirim; H I Altinsoy; E Yakut
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 1.220

6.  Testability of refraction, stereopsis, and other ocular measures in preschool children: the Sydney Paediatric Eye Disease Study.

Authors:  Amy Shih-I Pai; Kathryn A Rose; Chameen Samarawickrama; Reena Fotedar; George Burlutsky; Rohit Varma; Paul Mitchell
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.220

7.  Validity of the Titmus and Randot circles tasks in children with known binocular vision disorders.

Authors:  Sherry L Fawcett; Eileen E Birch
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.220

8.  Evaluation of distance and near stereoacuity and fusional vergence in intermittent exotropia.

Authors:  Pradeep Sharma; Rohit Saxena; Makarand Narvekar; Ritu Gadia; Vimla Menon
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2008 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.848

9.  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

10.  Evaluating stereoacuity with 3D shutter glasses technology.

Authors:  Huang Wu; Han Jin; Ying Sun; Yang Wang; Min Ge; Yang Chen; Yunfeng Chi
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 2.209

View more
  6 in total

1.  Evaluation of the Relationship Between Aniseikonia and Stereopsis Using a New Method.

Authors:  Lingxian Xu; Lu Liu; Huang Wu
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-05-20

Review 2.  Stereopsis after corneal refractive surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Alireza Peyman; Mohsen Pourazizi; Mohamadreza Akhlaghi; Awat Feizi; Alireza Rahimi; Elham Soltani
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 2.029

3.  Evaluation of depth perception and association of severity in Glaucoma patients and suspects.

Authors:  Pragati Gautam Adhikari; Madhu Thapa; Manisha Dahal
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-12-15       Impact factor: 2.209

4.  Effect of Luminance and Contrast Variation on Stereoacuity Measurements Using Smartphone Technology.

Authors:  Lu Liu; Lingxian Xu; Junyue Wang; Huang Wu
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 1.909

5.  Screening for Stereopsis of Children Using an Autostereoscopic Smartphone.

Authors:  Yanhui Yang; Huang Wu
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 1.909

6.  Distribution of Visual and Oculomotor Alterations in a Clinical Population of Children with and without Neurodevelopmental Disorders.

Authors:  Carmen Bilbao; David Pablo Piñero
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2021-03-10
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.