ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
Novel Glasses-Free Distance Stereotest Using Eye Tracking: Evaluation of Sensitivity, Validity, Reliability, and Monocular Cue Masking.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study assessed the sensitivity, validity, reliability, and monocular cue masking of a novel glasses-free distance random-dot stereotest system (GFDRDSS) compared with the established Distance Randot stereotest in youth with normal vision. Methods: A total of 185 participants (17-20 years) with normal uncorrected visual acuity and eye alignment were enrolled. Distance stereoacuity was measured by GFDRDSS at 5 m and Distance Randot at 3 m. Among 38 participants, stereoacuity was measured under normal and induced monocular blur conditions using Bangerter filters for blurring. Test-retest data were gathered from 58 additional participants. Thirty-eight normal participants were tested with both methods to compare the sensitivity of the two stereopsis acuity tests. The same 38 participants had their monocular vision blurred to suppress stereopsis, followed by testing with the two methods mentioned above to evaluate their effectiveness. Additionally, 58 participants underwent repeated testing with a one-day interval to compare the stability of both methods, 89 participants used one eye to identify stereograms in revised GFDRDSS, GFDRDSS, and DR, and compared the monocular cues present in the three methods. Results: Among the 38 participants, 81.58% achieved 60 arcsec stereoacuity with GFDRDSS and 100% reached 100 arcsec, while 47.37% achieved 60 arcsec and 97.37% 100 arcsec with Distance Randot ( Conclusion: GFDRDSS demonstrates greater sensitivity and comparable validity and reliability to the Distance Randot stereotest. Improving the design of stereoscopic random-dot patterns can effectively eliminate monocular cues, supporting its potential in clinical stereotesting.
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.