ArticleVision research2026
The best stereoacuity is rarely at the fovea.
Article in Vision research, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Stereoacuity, the ability to perceive depth from binocular disparity, is traditionally considered to be best at the fovea in typical human vision, and to decline with eccentricity. Previous studies have shown that when stereopsis is present in amblyopia, it is often coarse and comparable to stereoacuity associated with the peripheral retina in neurotypical controls, suggesting that it might be mediated by a non-foveal locus. Here we measured stereoacuity as a function of eccentricity in participants with amblyopia as well as controls with no history of abnormal visual development. We measured stereoacuity using random dot stereograms and targets that scaled with eccentricity, testing the fovea, and eccentricities of 2.5°, 5°, and 10° along the horizontal and vertical meridians. For 87.5% (7/8) of amblyopic participants, the locus of best stereoacuity was non-foveal. Surprisingly, 75% of control participants (15/20) also exhibited their best stereoacuity at non-foveal locations, with only 5 controls showing foveal superiority. Using stimulus parameters modified to improve foveal performance, we repeated measurements on a subset of controls whose best stereoacuity was non-foveal, but the best locus only shifted to the fovea in one participant. Stereoacuity measured at the experimentally determined "best locus" correlated well with standard clinical stereoacuity tests. These findings challenge the conventional view of universal foveal dominance for stereopsis, suggesting that the fovea is not invariably the site of best stereoscopic sensitivity, even in many normally sighted individuals. This has implications for understanding binocular vision in amblyopic and normal vision, and for interpreting clinical stereo tests.
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.