ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2022
Differences in stereoacuity between crossed and uncrossed disparities reduce with practice.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpupillary Distance and Binocular Vision: Assessing the Association Between Anatomy and Sensory-Motor Functions.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Validation of Angular Indication Measurement (AIM) Stereoacuity.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Differences in stereoacuity between crossed and uncrossed disparities reduce with practice.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStereoacuity, like many forms of hyperacuity, improves with practice. We investigated the effects of repeated measurements over multiple visits on stereoacuity using two commonly utilised clinical stereotests, for both crossed and uncrossed disparity stimuli.
methodsParticipants were adults with normal binocular vision (n = 17) aged between 18 and 50 years. Stereoacuity was measured using the Randot and TNO stereotests on five separate occasions over a six week period. We utilised both crossed and uncrossed stimuli to separately evaluate stereoacuity in both disparity directions. A subset of the subject group also completed a further five visits over an additional six week period. Threshold stereoacuity was determined by the lowest disparity level at which the subjects could correctly identify both the position and disparity direction (crossed or uncrossed) of the stimulus. Data were analysed by repeated measures analysis of variance.
resultsStereoacuity for crossed and uncrossed stimuli improved significantly across the first five visits (F
conclusionsStereoacuity measured with both the TNO and Randot stereotests improved significantly over the course of five repetitions. Although differences between crossed and uncrossed stereoacuity were evident, they depended on the stereotest used and reduced or disappeared after repeated measurements. A single measure of stereoacuity is inadequate for properly evaluating adult stereopsis clinically.
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.