ArticleJournal of optometry2026
Effects of task explanation on stereoacuity measurements using a random-dot stereotest.
Article in Journal of optometry, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAccurate stereoacuity assessment is essential for evaluating binocular vision, yet non-visual factors such as instruction quality and task execution time might influence performance on random-dot stereotest in adults with normal binocular vision.
methodsIn this randomized controlled study, 100 adults (mean age 26.4 ± 5.17 years) with normal binocular vision were assigned to a control group (n = 40) or an experimental group (n = 60). All participants completed two consecutive administrations of the Random Dot 2 Stereo Acuity Test with LEA Symbols in an immediate test-retest paradigm. In the control group, both administrations followed standard manufacturer instructions. In the experimental group, the second (retest) administration was preceded by a detailed explanation supported by visual examples of possible target shapes. Stereoacuity (in arcseconds) and test completion time (in seconds) were recorded to evaluate the effect of enhanced instruction on retest performance.
resultsThe control group showed no significant change in stereoacuity between measurements (mean change: 0.03 log10 arcsec, p = 0.125). In contrast, the experimental group demonstrated a significant improvement (mean change: 0.45 log10 arcsec, p < 0.0001), with most participants reaching the test's finest disparity level (63 arcsec). Changes in response time did not differ between groups (p = 0.063). However, in the experimental group, greater improvements in stereoacuity were strongly associated with longer post-test response times (p < 0.0001).
conclusionEnhanced instructions with visual cues significantly improved stereoacuity outcomes beyond expected test-retest variability, highlighting the importance of instruction quality and task engagement in stereopsis assessment, which should be carefully considered in both clinical practice and research settings.
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.