A comparison of stereopsis testing between red/green targets and polarized targets in children with normal binocular vision
- PMID: 18302956
- DOI: 10.1016/j.optm.2007.05.013
A comparison of stereopsis testing between red/green targets and polarized targets in children with normal binocular vision
Abstract
Background: Measurement of stereopsis is important in assessing a patient's binocular status. Several measurement methods are available, most commonly using polarized targets. Recently, less expensive red/green targets have become available. In this study, we compare polarized versus red/green methods, using random dot and contour targets.
Methods: Sixty children with no strabismus, amblyopia, or high refractive error and normal ocular health were recruited. Stereopsis measurements were taken using the red/green and polarized versions of the Random Dot Letter "E"/RDE Test, Random Dot Butterfly/Stereo Butterfly Test, Stereo Circles/Wirt Circles, Stereo Numbers, and Stereo Animals tests. Observed agreement was used to assess agreement between results. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare an individual's response with both targets.
Results: There was greater than 95% agreement using any of the Random Dot-based tests and the Stereo Animals tests. However, agreement was less than 60% with the Stereo Numbers test and less than 35% with the Stereo Circles/Wirt Circles test.
Conclusion: The red/green versions of the Random Dot-based tests and the Stereo Animals test appear to be a cost-effective alternative to their polarized equivalents. Our data, however, show that the red/green versions tend to underestimate the level of stereopsis when using the Stereo Numbers and Stereo Circles/Wirt Circles tests compared to their polarized equivalents.
Similar articles
-
Stereopsis testing without polarized glasses: a comparison study on five new stereoacuity tests.J Am Optom Assoc. 1994 Sep;65(9):637-41. J Am Optom Assoc. 1994. PMID: 7963223 Clinical Trial.
-
Development of stereoscopic acuity: longitudinal study using a computer-based random-dot stereo test.Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2005 Jan-Feb;49(1):1-5. doi: 10.1007/s10384-004-0141-4. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2005. PMID: 15692766
-
Stereopsis measured by random-dot patterns--a new clinical test.Br J Physiol Opt. 1976;31(4):22-5. Br J Physiol Opt. 1976. PMID: 1053020
-
Stereo vision and strabismus.Eye (Lond). 2015 Feb;29(2):214-24. doi: 10.1038/eye.2014.279. Epub 2014 Dec 5. Eye (Lond). 2015. PMID: 25475234 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Does stereopsis matter in humans?Eye (Lond). 1996;10 ( Pt 2):233-8. doi: 10.1038/eye.1996.51. Eye (Lond). 1996. PMID: 8776453 Review.
Cited by
-
Overestimation of stereo thresholds by the TNO stereotest is not due to global stereopsis.Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2017 Jul;37(4):507-520. doi: 10.1111/opo.12371. Epub 2017 Mar 23. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2017. PMID: 28337792 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of Four Methods for Measuring Heterophoria and Accommodative Convergence over Accommodation Ratio.Vision (Basel). 2024 Oct 18;8(4):62. doi: 10.3390/vision8040062. Vision (Basel). 2024. PMID: 39449395 Free PMC article.
-
Differences in stereoacuity between crossed and uncrossed disparities reduce with practice.Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2022 Nov;42(6):1353-1362. doi: 10.1111/opo.13040. Epub 2022 Aug 23. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2022. PMID: 35997266 Free PMC article.
-
Intraexaminer repeatability and agreement in stereoacuity measurements made in young adults.Int J Ophthalmol. 2015 Apr 18;8(2):374-81. doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.02.29. eCollection 2015. Int J Ophthalmol. 2015. PMID: 25938059 Free PMC article.