ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2020
Stereotest Comparison: Efficacy, Reliability, and Variability of a New Glasses-Free Stereotest.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Novel Glasses-Free Distance Stereotest Using Eye Tracking: Evaluation of Sensitivity, Validity, Reliability, and Monocular Cue Masking.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Binocular Summation With Quantitative Contrast Sensitivity Function: A Novel Parameter to Evaluate Binocular Function in Intermittent Exotropia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Comparison of Foraging Interactive D-prime and Angular Indication Measurement Stereo with different methods to assess stereopsis.PloS one · 2024Article
- The eRDS v6 Stereotest and the Vivid Vision Stereo Test: Two New Tests of Stereoscopic Vision.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Monovision Correction Preference and Eye Dominance Measurements.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Applications and implications for extended reality to improve binocular vision and stereopsis.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Comparison of stereopsis thresholds measured with conventional methods and a new eye tracking method.PloS one · 2023Article
- 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To test the validity of the ASTEROID stereotest as a clinical test of depth perception by comparing it to clinical and research standard tests. Methods: Thirty-nine subjects completed four stereotests twice: the ASTEROID test on an autostereo 3D tablet, a research standard on a VPixx PROPixx 3D projector, Randot Circles, and Randot Preschool. Within 14 days, subjects completed each test for a third time. Results: ASTEROID stereo thresholds correlated well with research standard thresholds ( Conclusions: Compared to clinical and research standards for assessing depth perception, ASTEROID is highly accurate, has good test-retest reliability, and measures a wider range of stereo threshold. Translational Relevance: The ASTEROID stereotest is a better clinical tool for determining baseline stereopsis and tracking changes during treatment for amblyopia and strabismus compared to current clinical tests.
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.