ArticlePloS one2023
Feasibility of measuring fusional vergence amplitudes objectively.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07697131 (A Comparative Study of Fusional Vergence According to Ocular Dominance in Healthy Subjects), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
A Comparative Study of Fusional Vergence According to Ocular Dominance in Healthy Subjects
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Objective evaluation of fusional vergence after a vision therapy protocol in typical binocular vision.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025Trial
- Analysis of Saccade Characteristics During Fusional Vergence Tests in Normal Binocular Vision Participants.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- The Measurement and Clinical Implications of the CA/C Ratio in Binocular Vision: A Literature Review.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 2026Review
- The Interaction between Vergence and Accommodation Cues in the Assessment of Fusional Vergence Range.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparison of vergence mechanisms between university students with good and poor sleep quality.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- The Effect of Prism Presentation Order on Near Vertical Fusional Vergence Ranges of Normal Young Adults.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two tests to measure fusional vergence amplitudes objectively were developed and validated against the two conventional clinical tests. Forty-nine adults participated in the study. Participants' negative (BI, base in) and positive (BO, base out) fusional vergence amplitudes at near were measured objectively in an haploscopic set-up by recording eye movements with an EyeLink 1000 Plus (SR Research). Stimulus disparity changed in steps or smoothly mimicking a prim bar and a Risley prism, respectively. Break and recovery points were determined offline using a custom Matlab algorithm for the analysis of eye movements. Fusional vergence amplitudes were also measured with two clinical tests using a Risley prism and a prism bar. A better agreement between tests was found for the measurement of BI than for BO fusional vergence amplitudes. The means ± SD of the differences between the BI break and recovery points measured with the two objective tests were -1.74 ± 3.35 PD and -1.97 ± 2.60 PD, respectively, which were comparable to those obtained for the subjective tests. For the BO break and recovery points, although the means of the differences between the two objective tests were small, high variability between subjects was found (0.31 ± 6.44 PD and -2.84 ± 7.01 PD, respectively). This study showed the feasibility to measure fusional vergence amplitudes objectively and overcome limitations of the conventional subjective tests. However, these tests cannot be used interchangeably due to their poor agreement.
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.