{"title":"Innovative Binocular Vision Testing for Phoria and Vergence Ranges Using Automatic Dual Rotational Risley Prisms.","authors":"Hui-Rong Su, Yu-Jung Chen, Yun-Shao Hu, Chi-Hung Lee, Shang-Min Yeh, Shuan-Yu Huang","doi":"10.3390/s25051604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study evaluated binocular visual function using automatic dual rotational Risley prisms (ADRRPs) to measure phoria and vergence ranges. Thirty-nine (mean age: 21.82 ± 1.10 years; age range: 20-24 years) healthy adults with normal binocular vision participated. Each underwent baseline refraction exams followed by phoria and vergence tests conducted using both a phoropter with Maddox rods and the ADRRPs. The results revealed a strong positive correlation between the two instruments for distance phoria (r = 0.959, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and near-phoria measurements (r = 0.968, <i>p</i> < 0.001). For vergence testing, positive fusional vergence (PFV) at distance showed a moderate-to-strong correlation for break points (r = 0.758, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and a moderate correlation for recovery points (r = 0.452, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Negative fusional vergence (NFV) at distance demonstrated a strong correlation for break points (r = 0.863, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and a moderate correlation for recovery points (r = 0.458, <i>p</i> < 0.01). Near-vergence testing showed moderate-to-strong correlations for break points (r = 0.777, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and recovery points (r = 0.623, <i>p</i> < 0.001). The inclusion of Bland-Altman analysis provides a more comprehensive evaluation of agreement between ADRRPs and the phoropter. While strong correlations were observed, systematic bias and LoA indicate that these methods are not perfectly interchangeable. The ADRRPs demonstrated potential for binocular vision assessment but require further validation for clinical application.</p>","PeriodicalId":21698,"journal":{"name":"Sensors","volume":"25 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11902822/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sensors","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/s25051604","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study evaluated binocular visual function using automatic dual rotational Risley prisms (ADRRPs) to measure phoria and vergence ranges. Thirty-nine (mean age: 21.82 ± 1.10 years; age range: 20-24 years) healthy adults with normal binocular vision participated. Each underwent baseline refraction exams followed by phoria and vergence tests conducted using both a phoropter with Maddox rods and the ADRRPs. The results revealed a strong positive correlation between the two instruments for distance phoria (r = 0.959, p < 0.001) and near-phoria measurements (r = 0.968, p < 0.001). For vergence testing, positive fusional vergence (PFV) at distance showed a moderate-to-strong correlation for break points (r = 0.758, p < 0.001) and a moderate correlation for recovery points (r = 0.452, p < 0.001). Negative fusional vergence (NFV) at distance demonstrated a strong correlation for break points (r = 0.863, p < 0.001) and a moderate correlation for recovery points (r = 0.458, p < 0.01). Near-vergence testing showed moderate-to-strong correlations for break points (r = 0.777, p < 0.001) and recovery points (r = 0.623, p < 0.001). The inclusion of Bland-Altman analysis provides a more comprehensive evaluation of agreement between ADRRPs and the phoropter. While strong correlations were observed, systematic bias and LoA indicate that these methods are not perfectly interchangeable. The ADRRPs demonstrated potential for binocular vision assessment but require further validation for clinical application.
期刊介绍:
Sensors (ISSN 1424-8220) provides an advanced forum for the science and technology of sensors and biosensors. It publishes reviews (including comprehensive reviews on the complete sensors products), regular research papers and short notes. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.