ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2021
General and Specific Effects of Stereo Learning.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effects of task explanation on stereoacuity measurements using a random-dot stereotest.Journal of optometry · 2026Article
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
Technological advancements in virtual reality challenge the human vision, especially stereopsis, a function, which characterizes how two eyes coordinate to form a unified three-dimensional (3D) representation of the external world and is found to be deficient in 30% of the normal population. Although a few previous studies have consistently found that the perceptual learning of stereopsis significantly improved stereoacuity, an underlying mechanism of stereo learning remains heavily debated. Here, we trained subjects with normal stereo vision (assessed with the FLY Stereo Acuity Test) to judge stereopsis containing three types of binocular disparity orders (i.e., zero-, first-, and second-order), aiming to systematically examine the characteristics and plasticity of stereo learning. Thirty subjects were randomly assigned to the three training groups (each for the zero-, first-, or second-order disparity separately). The disparity thresholds were measured before and after training. The disparity threshold was measured in 10 additional control subjects only at the pre- and post-training phase. Stereoscopic images were displayed through a shutter goggle, which is synchronized to a monitor. We found that the training significantly improved the zero-, first-, and second-order disparity threshold by 52.42, 36.28, and 14.9% in the zero-order training condition; 30.44, 63.74, and 21.07% in the first-order training condition; and 30.77, 25.19, and 75.12% in the second-order training condition, respectively. There was no significant improvement in the control group. Interestingly, the greatest improvements in the first- and second-order disparity threshold were found in the corresponding disparity training group; on the contrary, the improvements in the zero-order disparity threshold were comparable across all the three disparity training groups. Our findings demonstrated both general (related to the zero-order disparity) and specific improvements (related to the first- and second-order disparity) in stereo learning, suggesting that stereo training occurs at different visual processing stages and its effects might depend on the specific training sites.
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.