ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Validation of Angular Indication Measurement (AIM) Stereoacuity.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Stereopsis is a critical visual function, however clinical stereotests are time-consuming, coarse in resolution, suffer low test-retest repeatability, and poor agreement with other tests. We developed AIM Stereoacuity to address these limitations and asked whether it could deliver reliable, efficient, and precise stereo-thresholds across stimulus types and disparity signs. Methods: Observers reported the orientation of 5×1.25° bar defined by disparity of random dots embedded in a 6° diameter circular cell, presented in a 4*4 grid. Bar disparity was scaled from ± 2σ relative to a threshold and slope-estimate, initially set by the experimenter and adaptively updated. Orientation report errors (indicated vs. actual bar-orientation) were fit with a cumulative Gaussian function to derive stereo-thresholds. Twenty-one normally-sighted observers were tested with red-blue anaglyphs in crossed and uncrossed disparity signs across 4 element-types (8.5arcmin broadband dots, or band-pass difference of Gaussians with peak Spatial-Frequency (SF) of 2, 4, or 6 c/°). We analyzed stereoacuities, test durations, and the test-retest repeatability. Results: Across SFs and observers, test duration for a chart were 36 and 40 secs for measuring crossed and uncrossed disparity, respectively. There was no effect of disparity sign or SF (Kruskal-Wallis; p>0.05). Median log stereo-thresholds averaged across all SFs were 1.90 and 1.84 log arcsec for crossed and uncrossed disparities, respectively. Crossed and uncrossed disparities were moderately correlated across SFs(r=0.44 to 0.79; median=0.54). Test-retest biases were 0.01 arcsec (p=0.45) and 0.10 arcsec (p= 0.001) for crossed and uncrossed disparities, respectively. Conclusions: The results for the response-adaptive, self-administered AIM Stereoacuity method showed no significant stereo-thresholds differences between broad- and narrow-band stimuli. The test delivers repeatable results for crossed disparity in approximately 80 seconds.
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.