ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2020
ASTEROID stereotest v1.0: lower stereo thresholds using smaller, denser and faster dots.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The best stereoacuity is rarely at the fovea.Vision research · 2026Article
- Vergence anomalies are associated with impaired stereopsis in amblyopia.Vision research · 2025Article
- Late Development of Sensory Thresholds for Horizontal Relative Disparity in Human Visual Cortex in the Face of Precocial Development of Thresholds for Absolute Disparity.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- The eRDS v6 Stereotest and the Vivid Vision Stereo Test: Two New Tests of Stereoscopic Vision.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Applications and implications for extended reality to improve binocular vision and stereopsis.Journal of vision · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn 2019, we described ASTEROID, a new stereotest run on a 3D tablet computer which involves a four-alternative disparity detection task on a dynamic random-dot stereogram. Stereo thresholds measured with ASTEROID were well correlated with, but systematically higher than (by a factor of around 1.5), thresholds measured with previous laboratory stereotests or the Randot Preschool clinical stereotest. We speculated that this might be due to the relatively large, sparse dots used in ASTEROID v0.9. Here, we introduce and test the stereo thresholds and test-repeatability of the new ASTEROID v1.0, which uses precomputed images to allow stereograms made up of much smaller, denser dots.
methodsStereo thresholds and test/retest repeatability were tested and compared between the old and new versions of ASTEROID (n = 75) and the Randot Circles (n = 31) stereotest, in healthy young adults.
resultsThresholds on ASTEROID v1.0 are lower (better) than on ASTEROID v0.9 by a factor of 1.4, and do not differ significantly from thresholds on the Randot Circles. Thresholds were roughly log-normally distributed with a mean of 1.54 log
conclusionThe poorer stereo thresholds previously reported with ASTEROID v0.9 appear to have been due to the relatively large, coarse dots and low density used, rather than to some other aspect of the technology. Employing the small dots and high density used in ASTEROID v1.0, thresholds and test/retest repeatability are similar to other clinical stereotests.
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.