ArticlePloS one2023
Comparison of stereopsis thresholds measured with conventional methods and a new eye tracking method.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeStereopsis is the ability to perceive depth using the slightly different views from two eyes. This study aims to conduct innovative stereopsis tests using the objective data outputted by eye tracking technology.
methodsA laptop and an eye tracker were used to establish the test system. Anaglyphic glasses were employed to execute the stereopsis assessment. The test symbol employed was devised to emulate the quantitative measurement component of the Random Dot 3 Stereo Acuity Test. Sub-pixel technology was used to increase the disparity accuracy of test pages. The tested disparities were: 160″, 100″, 63″, 50″, 40″, 32″, 25″, 20″, 16″, and 12.5″. The test was conducted at a distance of 0.65m. Conventional and eye tracking stereopsis assessments were conducted on 120 subjects. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test the difference, while the Bland-Altman method was used to test the consistency between the two methods.
resultsThe Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed no significant difference between conventional and eye tracking thresholds of stereopsis (Z = -1.497, P = 0.134). There was a high level of agreement between the two methods using Bland- Altman statistical analysis (The 95 per cent limits of agreement were -0.40 to 0.47 log arcsec).
conclusionsStereoacuity can be evaluated utilizing an innovative stereopsis measurement system grounded in eye tracking technology.
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.