ArticleBMC ophthalmology2020
The effect of dot size in random-dot stereograms on the results of stereoacuity measurements.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual Tracking in Amblyopia: A Continuous Psychophysical Approach.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Quantifying the Relationship Between Unilateral Induced Metamorphopsia and Stereopsis Impairment.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Assessment of autostereoscopic perception using artificial intelligence-enhanced face tracking technology.PloS one · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Relationship Between Aniseikonia and Stereopsis Using a New Method.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Relationship between stereopsis and vision-related quality of life in patients with branch retinal vein occlusion.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2022Observational
- Evaluating the Mechanism by Which the TNO Stereo Test Overestimates Stereo Thresholds.Journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Effect of Luminance and Contrast Variation on Stereoacuity Measurements Using Smartphone Technology.Journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of the size of the dots in random-dot stereograms on the results of stereoacuity measurements.
methodsA stereopsis measurement system was created using a phoropter and two 4 K smartphones. Three dot sizes, including 1 × 1 pixel, 6 × 6 pixels, and 10 × 10 pixels (equivalent to 0.17 min arc, 1 min arc, and 1.68 min arc, respectively), were used to form random-dot arrays, and each test pattern had one Lea symbol hidden within it. The resulting stereograms were tested on 30 subjects with normal acuity and stereoacuity.
resultsStereoacuity measured with the 1-pixel dots was significantly worse than that measured with the 6-pixel dots (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Z = -4.903, P < 0.001) and the 10-pixel dots (Z = -4.941, P < 0.001). No significant difference was found between 6-pixel dot and 10-pixel dot stereograms (Z = -1.000, P = 0.317).
conclusionThe size of the dots in random-dot stereograms affects the test results significantly when the dots are too small for the eye to resolve.
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.