ArticleScientific reports2019
Binocular non-stereoscopic cues can deceive clinical tests of stereopsis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of task explanation on stereoacuity measurements using a random-dot stereotest.Journal of optometry · 2026Article
- Effects of Monocular Perceptual Learning on Eye-Specific Cortical Activity in Residual Anisometropic Amblyopia: Evidence From EEG Asymmetry.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Extending Treatment Duration in Perceptual Learning for Amblyopia.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Effects on Stereopsis Under Different Lighting Conditions.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 2026Article
- Vergence anomalies are associated with impaired stereopsis in amblyopia.Vision research · 2025Article
- Binocular and Fellow Eye Acuity Deficits in Amblyopia: Impact of Fixation Instability and Sensory Factors.Journal of eye movement research · 2025Article
- Fixation Stability Deficits in Anisometropic Amblyopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Novel Glasses-Free Distance Stereotest Using Eye Tracking: Evaluation of Sensitivity, Validity, Reliability, and Monocular Cue Masking.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Evaluating Eye Tracking During Dichoptic Video Viewing With Varied Fellow Eye Contrasts in Amblyopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Stereo-anomaly is found more frequently in tasks that require discrimination between depths.iScience · 2024Article
- Binocular function in the aging visual system: fusion, suppression, and stereoacuity.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Article
- The eRDS v6 Stereotest and the Vivid Vision Stereo Test: Two New Tests of Stereoscopic Vision.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Comparison of stereopsis thresholds measured with conventional methods and a new eye tracking method.PloS one · 2023Article
- Mapping residual stereopsis in macular degeneration.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- Differences in stereoacuity between crossed and uncrossed disparities reduce with practice.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022Article
- Unusual Mathematical Approaches Untangle Nervous Dynamics.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- Effect of Impaired Stereoscopic Vision on Large-Scale Resting-State Functional Network Connectivity in Comitant Exotropia Patients.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Transfer of Perceptual Learning From Local Stereopsis to Global Stereopsis in Adults With Amblyopia: A Preliminary Study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- ASTEROID stereotest v1.0: lower stereo thresholds using smaller, denser and faster dots.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Stereoscopic vision plays a critical role in visual perception; however, it is difficult to assess. In clinical settings, stereoacuity is assessed with clinical stereotests. Observers can use monocular cues to deceive some of the most common stereotests, such as the Titmus test. The Randot test has been found free of monocular cues, and here we confirm that result by testing observers under monocular viewing. However, there is a common misconception that only monocular cues can be used to deceive stereotests. Here we demonstrate that binocular non-stereoscopic cues can also be used to pass the Randot, by testing participants with the test rotated, a condition that abolishes stereopsis, and comparing the performance to a monocular viewing condition. We also assessed the Random Dot Butterfly test and discovered considerable amounts of non-stereoscopic cues, including binocular cues in the Circles that can be used to deceive the test. Participants with amblyopia had more difficulty using non-stereoscopic cues than neurotypical observers. We gathered normal-viewing Randot stereoacuities for 110 participants (90 neurotypical and 20 with amblyopia) and compared them to psychophysical stereoacuities (our gold standard). The Randot test showed low positive normalized predictive values for detecting stereoblindness. It could perfectly detect stereo-impairment but with a low sensitivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.