ArticlePloS one2024
Comparison of Foraging Interactive D-prime and Angular Indication Measurement Stereo with different methods to assess stereopsis.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel color vision assessment tool: AIM color detection and discrimination.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Impaired face identity discrimination in individuals with cerebral visual impairment: a pilot study.Annals of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Validation of Angular Indication Measurement (AIM) Stereoacuity.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Visual Performance of People With Albinism Assessed With Generalizable and Adaptive AIM and FInD Methods.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- A novel, rapid, quantitative method for face discrimination.PloS one · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeStereopsis is a critical visual function, however clinical stereotests are time-consuming, coarse in resolution, suffer memorization artifacts, poor repeatability, and low agreement with other tests. Foraging Interactive D-prime (FInD) Stereo and Angular Indication Measurement (AIM) Stereo were designed to address these problems. Here, their performance was compared with 2-Alternative-Forced-Choice (2-AFC) paradigms (FInD Stereo only) and clinical tests (Titmus and Randot) in 40 normally-sighted and 5 binocularly impaired participants (FInD Stereo only).
methodsDuring FInD tasks, participants indicated which cells in three 4*4 charts of bandpass-filtered targets (1,2,4,8c/° conditions) contained depth, compared with 2-AFC and clinical tests. During the AIM task, participants reported the orientation of depth-defined bars in three 4*4 charts. Stereoscopic disparity was adaptively changed after each chart. Inter-test agreement, repeatability and duration were compared.
resultsTest duration was significantly longer for 2-AFC (mean = 317s;79s per condition) than FInD (216s,18s per chart), AIM (179s, 60s per chart), Titmus (66s) or RanDot (97s). Estimates of stereoacuity differed across tests and were higher by a factor of 1.1 for AIM and 1.3 for FInD. No effect of stimulus spatial frequency was found. Agreement among tests was generally low (R2 = 0.001 to 0.24) and was highest between FInD and 2-AFC (R2 = 0.24;p<0.01). Stereoacuity deficits were detected by all tests in binocularly impaired participants.
conclusionsAgreement among all tests was low. FInD and AIM inter-test agreement was comparable with other methods. FInD Stereo detected stereo deficits and may only require one condition to identify these deficits. AIM and FInD are response-adaptive, self-administrable methods that can estimate stereoacuity reliably within one minute.
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.