ArticleJournal of vision2024
The influence of simulated visual impairment on distance stereopsis.
Article in Journal of vision, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Impact of Simulated Astigmatism on Visual Acuity, Stereopsis, and Reading in Young Adults.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Increasing myopic refraction reduces random dot stereopsis in Chinese myopic patients: a cross-sectional study.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The intricate interrelationships between visual acuity (VA) and stereopsis depend on an array of factors, incorporating the nature of vision impairment, its manifestation (monocular versus binocular), and the classification of stereopsis test symbols used. The objectives of this study were to methodically dissect these multifaceted interactions by simulating a diverse range of vision loss conditions. Thirty medical students with normal vision were subjected to simulated vision loss through opacification and blurring methodologies. Stereopsis was assessed at a distance using both contour-based and random-dot-based symbols under equal binocular and varied monocular VA conditions. In this study, opacification consistently affected stereopsis more than blurring at equivalent VA reductions. However, this difference was absent in contour-based symbols under binocular vision impairment conditions. Significant differences in stereopsis emerged between monocular and binocular vision within the opacification contour-based groups. These differences were less evident in the opacification and blurring groups using random-dot-based patterns. In terms of symbols, the contour-based test demonstrated superior results to the random-dot-based test, particularly under decreased VA. In sum, the method of VA reduction and the choice of stereogram significantly impact distance stereopsis outcomes. This understanding can guide clinical assessments of stereopsis in individuals with varying visual impairments.
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.