Variation in the degradation of stereoacuity via monocular blur across multiple stereotests.

IF 0.8 Q4 OPHTHALMOLOGY Strabismus Pub Date : 2025-02-06 DOI:10.1080/09273972.2024.2448521
Jay Davies, Anna O'Connor, Jignasa Mehta
{"title":"Variation in the degradation of stereoacuity via monocular blur across multiple stereotests.","authors":"Jay Davies, Anna O'Connor, Jignasa Mehta","doi":"10.1080/09273972.2024.2448521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Purpose</i>: Detecting changes in stereothresholds aids in the diagnosis and management of binocular vision disorders. However, there is variation in the stereoacuity levels measured across a range of stereotests. There are limited data assessing how stereotests respond to degradations of stereoacuity. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare stereothresholds obtained from four different stereotests across different conditions of induced monocular blur. <i>Methods</i>: Stereoacuity was measured once for each Bangerter foil condition (no foil, 0.2 foil, 0.4 foil) using the Frisby, TNO, Lang-Stereopad and Asteroid stereotests. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, no history of conditions that could impair stereoacuity, best-corrected monocular visual acuity of equal to or better than 0.3 logMAR, an interocular difference of less than 0.2 logMAR, up to date refractive correction (within the last 2 years) if required, and the ability to provide informed written consent. Significance of the differences in values between tests was calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis test, with further pairwise comparisons made via post-hoc analysis. <i>Results</i>: Fifty-one visually normal adults (67% female) of mean age 25 years ±8.35 were included. Statistically significant differences were achieved for most pairwise comparisons (<i>p</i> < .05), except when comparing TNO and Asteroid. The TNO and Lang-Stereopad tests degraded by the same median values between foil conditions, with Frisby showing the least median change between foils (0.135 median difference between 0.2 and 0.4 foils, <i>p</i> < .001). <i>Conclusions</i>: Stereotests detect stereoacuity degradation to varying extents, with the Asteroid test being most sensitive to change via monocular blur. The reasons for these differences lie in the varying methods of presentation. It is therefore recommended that test selection remains constant between appointments for the purpose of assessing subtle changes to aid patient management. Further evaluation of the ability to detect alterations in stereothresholds is required in people with impaired stereoacuity.</p>","PeriodicalId":51700,"journal":{"name":"Strabismus","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Strabismus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09273972.2024.2448521","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Detecting changes in stereothresholds aids in the diagnosis and management of binocular vision disorders. However, there is variation in the stereoacuity levels measured across a range of stereotests. There are limited data assessing how stereotests respond to degradations of stereoacuity. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare stereothresholds obtained from four different stereotests across different conditions of induced monocular blur. Methods: Stereoacuity was measured once for each Bangerter foil condition (no foil, 0.2 foil, 0.4 foil) using the Frisby, TNO, Lang-Stereopad and Asteroid stereotests. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, no history of conditions that could impair stereoacuity, best-corrected monocular visual acuity of equal to or better than 0.3 logMAR, an interocular difference of less than 0.2 logMAR, up to date refractive correction (within the last 2 years) if required, and the ability to provide informed written consent. Significance of the differences in values between tests was calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis test, with further pairwise comparisons made via post-hoc analysis. Results: Fifty-one visually normal adults (67% female) of mean age 25 years ±8.35 were included. Statistically significant differences were achieved for most pairwise comparisons (p < .05), except when comparing TNO and Asteroid. The TNO and Lang-Stereopad tests degraded by the same median values between foil conditions, with Frisby showing the least median change between foils (0.135 median difference between 0.2 and 0.4 foils, p < .001). Conclusions: Stereotests detect stereoacuity degradation to varying extents, with the Asteroid test being most sensitive to change via monocular blur. The reasons for these differences lie in the varying methods of presentation. It is therefore recommended that test selection remains constant between appointments for the purpose of assessing subtle changes to aid patient management. Further evaluation of the ability to detect alterations in stereothresholds is required in people with impaired stereoacuity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Strabismus
Strabismus OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
30
期刊最新文献
Impact of prism adaptation test on distance-near-deviation before strabismus surgery in patients with intermittent exotropia. Variation in the degradation of stereoacuity via monocular blur across multiple stereotests. Double extraocular muscle avulsion following injury by goat's horn. Canine tooth syndrome after frontoethmoidal osteoma surgery: a case report. Is inferior oblique botulinum toxin injection an effective surgical simulator prior to inferior oblique myectomy? A 30-year retrospective review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1