Effects of Target Size and Test Distance on Stereoacuity

被引:5
|
作者
Iwata, Yo [1 ]
Fujimura, Fusako [2 ]
Handa, Tomoya [2 ]
Shoji, Nobuyuki [2 ,3 ]
Ishikawa, Hitoshi [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Kitasato Univ, Grad Sch, Doctors Program Med Sci, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 2520373, Japan
[2] Kitasato Univ, Sch Allied Hlth Sci, Dept Rehabil Orthopt & Visual Sci Course, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 2520373, Japan
[3] Kitasato Univ, Sch Med, Dept Ophthalmol, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 2520373, Japan
关键词
STEREOSCOPIC ACUITY; STEREOPSIS; IMPROVEMENT; STEREOTEST; MONOVISION; SURGERY; FRISBY; TNO;
D O I
10.1155/2016/7950690
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Target size and test distance effects on stereoacuity were investigated in 24 subjects using a three-dimensional monitor. Examination 1: Target Size Effects. The test distance was 2.5 m for 0.1 degrees, 0.2 degrees, 0.5 degrees, and 0.9 degrees target sizes; crossed parallax was presented in 22-second units. Average stereoacuity values for 0.1 degrees, 0.2 degrees, 0.5 degrees, and 0.9 degrees target sizes were 59.58 +/- 14.86, 47.66 +/- 13.71, 41.25 +/- 15.95, and 39.41 +/- 15.52 seconds, respectively. Stereoacuity was significantly worse with a 0.1 degrees target than with 0.2 degrees, 0.5 degrees, and 0.9 degrees target sizes (P = 0.03, P < 0.0001, and P < 0.0001, resp.). Examination 2: Test Distance Effects. Test distances of 2.5, 5.0, and 7.5 m were investigated for a 0.5 degrees target size; crossed parallax was presented in 22-second units. Average stereoacuity values at 2.5 m, 5.0 m, and 7.5 m test distances were 44.91 +/- 16.16, 34.83 +/- 10.84, and 24.75 +/- 7.27 seconds, respectively. Stereoacuity at a 7.5 m distance was significantly better than at distances of 2.5 m and 5.0 m (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.02, resp.). Stereoacuity at a 5.0 m distance was significantly better than at 2.5 m (P = 0.04). Stereoacuity should be estimated by both parallax and other elements, including test distance and target size.
引用
收藏
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Does interpupillary distance predict stereoacuity for normal observers?
    Frisby, JP
    Davis, H
    Edgar, R
    PERCEPTION, 2003, 32 : 73 - 74
  • [32] Improvement in distance stereoacuity following surgery for intermittent exotropia
    Adams, Wendy E.
    Leske, David A.
    Hatt, Sarah R.
    Mohney, Brian G.
    Birch, Eileen E.
    Weakley, David R., Jr.
    Holmes, Jonathan M.
    JOURNAL OF AAPOS, 2008, 12 (02): : 141 - 144
  • [33] Normative Values for Near and Distance Clinical Tests of Stereoacuity
    Piano, Marianne E. F.
    Tidbury, Laurence P.
    O'Connor, Anna R.
    STRABISMUS, 2016, 24 (04) : 169 - 172
  • [34] Comparing stereotests: the TNO test overestimates stereoacuity
    Vancleef, Kathleen
    Read, Jenny
    Herbert, William
    Goodship, Nicola
    Woodhouse, Maeve
    Serrano-Pedraza, Ignacio
    PERCEPTION, 2016, 45 : 114 - 114
  • [35] EFFECTS OF SIZE AND DISTANCE ON MAGNITUDE ESTIMATIONS OF APPARENT SIZE
    TEGHTSOONIAN, R
    TEGHTSOONIAN, M
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 1970, 83 (04): : 601 - +
  • [36] A Clinical usefulness black randot stereoacuity test
    Yang, J
    Choi, M
    Son, M
    Yun, I
    Won, I
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2004, 45 : U963 - U963
  • [37] New tests of distance stereoacuity and their role in evaluating intermittent exotropia
    Holmes, Jonathan M.
    Birch, Eileen E.
    Leske, David A.
    Fu, Valeria L.
    Mohney, Brian G.
    OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2007, 114 (06) : 1215 - 1220
  • [38] INSTRUCTION EFFECTS ON SIZE AND DISTANCE JUDGMENTS
    TYER, ZE
    ALLEN, JA
    PASNAK, R
    PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS, 1983, 34 (02): : 135 - 139
  • [39] Evaluation of distance and near stereoacuity and fusional vergence in intermittent exotropia
    Sharma, Pradeep
    Saxena, Rohit
    Narvekar, Makarand
    Gadia, Ritu
    Menon, Vimla
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2008, 56 (02) : 121 - 125
  • [40] AN EXACT TEST OF SIZE-DISTANCE INVARIANCE HYPOTHESIS
    COOK, ML
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 1966, 79 (04): : 568 - &