Translational vision science & technology · 2023
The eRDS v6 Stereotest and the Vivid Vision Stereo Test: Two New Tests of Stereoscopic Vision.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Denkinger Sylvie, Antoniou Maria-Paraskevi, Tarello Demetrio, Levi Dennis M, Backus Benjamin T, Bavelier Daphné, Chopin Adrien
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To describe two new stereoacuity tests: the eRDS v6 stereotest, a global dynamic random dot stereogram (dRDS) test, and the Vivid Vision Stereo Test version 2 (VV), a local or "contour" stereotest for virtual reality (VR) headsets; and to evaluate the tests' reliability, validity compared to a dRDS standard, and learning effects.
METHODS: Sixty-four subjects passed a battery of stereotests, including perceiving depth from RDS. Validity was evaluated relative to a tablet-based dRDS reference test, ASTEROID. Reliability and learning effects were assessed over six sessions.
RESULTS: eRDS v6 was effective at measuring small thresholds (<10 arcsec) and had a moderate correlation (0.48) with ASTEROID. Across the six sessions, test-retest reliability was good, varying from 0.84 to 0.91, but learning occurred across the first three sessions. VV did not measure stereoacuities below 15 arcsec. It had a weak correlation with ASTEROID (0.27), and test-retest reliability was poor to moderate, varying from 0.35 to 0.74; however, no learning occurred between sessions.
CONCLUSIONS: eRDS v6 is precise and reliable but shows learning effects. If repeated three times at baseline, this test is well suited as an outcome measure for testing interventions. VV is less precise, but it is easy and rapid and shows no learning. It may be useful for testing interventions in patients who have no global stereopsis.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: eRDS v6 is well suited as an outcome measure to evaluate treatments that improve adult stereodepth perception. VV can be considered for screening patient with compromised stereovision.
METHODS: Sixty-four subjects passed a battery of stereotests, including perceiving depth from RDS. Validity was evaluated relative to a tablet-based dRDS reference test, ASTEROID. Reliability and learning effects were assessed over six sessions.
RESULTS: eRDS v6 was effective at measuring small thresholds (<10 arcsec) and had a moderate correlation (0.48) with ASTEROID. Across the six sessions, test-retest reliability was good, varying from 0.84 to 0.91, but learning occurred across the first three sessions. VV did not measure stereoacuities below 15 arcsec. It had a weak correlation with ASTEROID (0.27), and test-retest reliability was poor to moderate, varying from 0.35 to 0.74; however, no learning occurred between sessions.
CONCLUSIONS: eRDS v6 is precise and reliable but shows learning effects. If repeated three times at baseline, this test is well suited as an outcome measure for testing interventions. VV is less precise, but it is easy and rapid and shows no learning. It may be useful for testing interventions in patients who have no global stereopsis.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: eRDS v6 is well suited as an outcome measure to evaluate treatments that improve adult stereodepth perception. VV can be considered for screening patient with compromised stereovision.