ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020
The difference of distance stereoacuity measured with different separating methods.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel Glasses-Free Distance Stereotest Using Eye Tracking: Evaluation of Sensitivity, Validity, Reliability, and Monocular Cue Masking.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- A novel clinical dynamic stereopsis assessment based on autostereoscopic display system.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluating the Mechanism by Which the TNO Stereo Test Overestimates Stereo Thresholds.Journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- The effect of dot size in random-dot stereograms on the results of stereoacuity measurements.BMC ophthalmology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe majority of tests to evaluate stereopsis should separate two eyes first. Whether different binocular separating manner may affect the test result of stereopsis is the main purpose of this study. Red-green anaglyphs, polarized light technology, active shutter 3D system, and auto-stereoscopic technique were chosen to evaluate distance stereoacuity.
methodsRed-green anaglyphs test system was established with an ASUS laptop with the aid of TNO Stereotest glasses. Active shutter 3D system was set up with the same ASUS laptop with the aid of NVidia 3D Vision 2 Wireless Glasses Kit. The polarized 3D system adopted the AOC display. A Samsung naked-eye 3D laptop was used to set up an auto-stereoscopic system. Thirty subjects were recruited. Distance stereoacuity was measured with those computer systems.
resultsThe auto-stereoscopic system was failed to measure distance stereopsis. A significant difference was found among red-green anaglyphs, polarized 3D system, and active shutter 3D system (Friedman Test, Chi-square =48.713, P<0.001). No significant difference was found between the polarized 3D system and an active shutter 3D system (Z=-1.134, P=0.257). The stereoacuity of the red-green glasses test was significantly worse than those of the other two test systems (versus shutter 3D test, Z=-4.553, P<0.001; versus polarized 3D test, Z=-4.618, P<0.001).
conclusionsDifferent separating methods may affect the test result of distance stereopsis.
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.