使用眼动追踪的新型裸眼距离立体测试:敏感性、有效性、可靠性和单眼线索掩蔽的评估。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare Pub Date : 2025-03-28 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JMDH.S511165
Li-Qun Cao, Bei Cui, Xue-Ling Li, Bi-Ye Zhou, Li-Wei Qin, Ming-Gao Li, Yuan-Qing Wang, Feng-Xiang Wang
{"title":"使用眼动追踪的新型裸眼距离立体测试:敏感性、有效性、可靠性和单眼线索掩蔽的评估。","authors":"Li-Qun Cao, Bei Cui, Xue-Ling Li, Bi-Ye Zhou, Li-Wei Qin, Ming-Gao Li, Yuan-Qing Wang, Feng-Xiang Wang","doi":"10.2147/JMDH.S511165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study assessed the sensitivity, validity, reliability, and monocular cue masking of a novel glasses-free distance random-dot stereotest system (GFDRDSS) compared with the established Distance Randot stereotest in youth with normal vision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 185 participants (17-20 years) with normal uncorrected visual acuity and eye alignment were enrolled. Distance stereoacuity was measured by GFDRDSS at 5 m and Distance Randot at 3 m. Among 38 participants, stereoacuity was measured under normal and induced monocular blur conditions using Bangerter filters for blurring. Test-retest data were gathered from 58 additional participants. Thirty-eight normal participants were tested with both methods to compare the sensitivity of the two stereopsis acuity tests. The same 38 participants had their monocular vision blurred to suppress stereopsis, followed by testing with the two methods mentioned above to evaluate their effectiveness. Additionally, 58 participants underwent repeated testing with a one-day interval to compare the stability of both methods, 89 participants used one eye to identify stereograms in revised GFDRDSS, GFDRDSS, and DR, and compared the monocular cues present in the three methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 38 participants, 81.58% achieved 60 arcsec stereoacuity with GFDRDSS and 100% reached 100 arcsec, while 47.37% achieved 60 arcsec and 97.37% 100 arcsec with Distance Randot (<i>P</i> = 0.58×10<sup>-3</sup>). With monocular blur, stereoacuity in 89.47% (34/38) of participants fell to ≥ 200 arcsec with both stereotests (<i>P</i> = 0.115). Test-retest data indicated identical stereoacuity in 70.69% (41/58) of participants for GFDRDSS and 79.31% (46/58) for Distance Randot. Using both GFDRDSS and Distance Randot tests, 5.62% (5/89) of the participants were able to correctly perceive stereoscopic images with a disparity of ≤200 arcsec using only one eye. Under revised GFDRDSS conditions, only one participant was able to correctly perceive stereoscopic images at the 800 arcsec level using only one eye.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GFDRDSS demonstrates greater sensitivity and comparable validity and reliability to the Distance Randot stereotest. Improving the design of stereoscopic random-dot patterns can effectively eliminate monocular cues, supporting its potential in clinical stereotesting.</p>","PeriodicalId":16357,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare","volume":"18 ","pages":"1791-1801"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11960472/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Novel Glasses-Free Distance Stereotest Using Eye Tracking: Evaluation of Sensitivity, Validity, Reliability, and Monocular Cue Masking.\",\"authors\":\"Li-Qun Cao, Bei Cui, Xue-Ling Li, Bi-Ye Zhou, Li-Wei Qin, Ming-Gao Li, Yuan-Qing Wang, Feng-Xiang Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/JMDH.S511165\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study assessed the sensitivity, validity, reliability, and monocular cue masking of a novel glasses-free distance random-dot stereotest system (GFDRDSS) compared with the established Distance Randot stereotest in youth with normal vision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 185 participants (17-20 years) with normal uncorrected visual acuity and eye alignment were enrolled. Distance stereoacuity was measured by GFDRDSS at 5 m and Distance Randot at 3 m. Among 38 participants, stereoacuity was measured under normal and induced monocular blur conditions using Bangerter filters for blurring. Test-retest data were gathered from 58 additional participants. Thirty-eight normal participants were tested with both methods to compare the sensitivity of the two stereopsis acuity tests. The same 38 participants had their monocular vision blurred to suppress stereopsis, followed by testing with the two methods mentioned above to evaluate their effectiveness. Additionally, 58 participants underwent repeated testing with a one-day interval to compare the stability of both methods, 89 participants used one eye to identify stereograms in revised GFDRDSS, GFDRDSS, and DR, and compared the monocular cues present in the three methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 38 participants, 81.58% achieved 60 arcsec stereoacuity with GFDRDSS and 100% reached 100 arcsec, while 47.37% achieved 60 arcsec and 97.37% 100 arcsec with Distance Randot (<i>P</i> = 0.58×10<sup>-3</sup>). With monocular blur, stereoacuity in 89.47% (34/38) of participants fell to ≥ 200 arcsec with both stereotests (<i>P</i> = 0.115). Test-retest data indicated identical stereoacuity in 70.69% (41/58) of participants for GFDRDSS and 79.31% (46/58) for Distance Randot. Using both GFDRDSS and Distance Randot tests, 5.62% (5/89) of the participants were able to correctly perceive stereoscopic images with a disparity of ≤200 arcsec using only one eye. Under revised GFDRDSS conditions, only one participant was able to correctly perceive stereoscopic images at the 800 arcsec level using only one eye.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GFDRDSS demonstrates greater sensitivity and comparable validity and reliability to the Distance Randot stereotest. Improving the design of stereoscopic random-dot patterns can effectively eliminate monocular cues, supporting its potential in clinical stereotesting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"1791-1801\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11960472/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S511165\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S511165","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究评估了一种新型无眼镜距离随机点立体测试系统(GFDRDSS)与现有距离随机点立体测试在正常视力青少年中的灵敏度、效度、信度和单眼线索掩蔽。方法:共入组185名17-20岁、未矫正视力和眼线正常的受试者。在5 m处用GFDRDSS测量距离立体视敏度,在3 m处用Distance Randot测量距离立体视敏度。在38名参与者中,在正常和诱导的单眼模糊条件下,使用Bangerter滤光片进行模糊测量立体视敏度。从另外58名参与者中收集了测试-重测试数据。对38名正常人进行了两种方法的测试,比较了两种立体视敏锐度测试的灵敏度。同样的38名参与者将他们的单眼视力模糊以抑制立体视觉,然后用上述两种方法进行测试以评估其有效性。此外,58名参与者每隔一天进行重复测试以比较两种方法的稳定性,89名参与者使用一只眼睛识别经修订的GFDRDSS、GFDRDSS和DR中的立体图,并比较三种方法中存在的单眼线索。结果:38名受试者中,使用GFDRDSS的立体视力达到60 arcsec的比例为81.58%,100%达到100 arcsec,而使用Distance Randot的立体视力达到60 arcsec的比例为47.37%,达到100 arcsec的比例为97.37% (P = 0.58×10-3)。在单眼模糊组,89.47%(34/38)的参与者的立体视敏度在两项立体测试中均降至≥200弧秒(P = 0.115)。重测数据显示,70.69%(41/58)的受试者在GFDRDSS和79.31%(46/58)的距离随机点测试中具有相同的立体灵敏度。在GFDRDSS和距离随机点测试中,5.62%(5/89)的参与者能够单眼正确感知视差≤200弧秒的立体图像。在修订后的GFDRDSS条件下,只有一名参与者能够仅用一只眼睛正确地感知800弧秒水平的立体图像。结论:GFDRDSS与距离随机立体测验相比具有更高的灵敏度和相当的效度和信度。改进立体随机点图案的设计可以有效地消除单眼线索,支持其在临床立体检测中的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Novel Glasses-Free Distance Stereotest Using Eye Tracking: Evaluation of Sensitivity, Validity, Reliability, and Monocular Cue Masking.

Objective: This study assessed the sensitivity, validity, reliability, and monocular cue masking of a novel glasses-free distance random-dot stereotest system (GFDRDSS) compared with the established Distance Randot stereotest in youth with normal vision.

Methods: A total of 185 participants (17-20 years) with normal uncorrected visual acuity and eye alignment were enrolled. Distance stereoacuity was measured by GFDRDSS at 5 m and Distance Randot at 3 m. Among 38 participants, stereoacuity was measured under normal and induced monocular blur conditions using Bangerter filters for blurring. Test-retest data were gathered from 58 additional participants. Thirty-eight normal participants were tested with both methods to compare the sensitivity of the two stereopsis acuity tests. The same 38 participants had their monocular vision blurred to suppress stereopsis, followed by testing with the two methods mentioned above to evaluate their effectiveness. Additionally, 58 participants underwent repeated testing with a one-day interval to compare the stability of both methods, 89 participants used one eye to identify stereograms in revised GFDRDSS, GFDRDSS, and DR, and compared the monocular cues present in the three methods.

Results: Among the 38 participants, 81.58% achieved 60 arcsec stereoacuity with GFDRDSS and 100% reached 100 arcsec, while 47.37% achieved 60 arcsec and 97.37% 100 arcsec with Distance Randot (P = 0.58×10-3). With monocular blur, stereoacuity in 89.47% (34/38) of participants fell to ≥ 200 arcsec with both stereotests (P = 0.115). Test-retest data indicated identical stereoacuity in 70.69% (41/58) of participants for GFDRDSS and 79.31% (46/58) for Distance Randot. Using both GFDRDSS and Distance Randot tests, 5.62% (5/89) of the participants were able to correctly perceive stereoscopic images with a disparity of ≤200 arcsec using only one eye. Under revised GFDRDSS conditions, only one participant was able to correctly perceive stereoscopic images at the 800 arcsec level using only one eye.

Conclusion: GFDRDSS demonstrates greater sensitivity and comparable validity and reliability to the Distance Randot stereotest. Improving the design of stereoscopic random-dot patterns can effectively eliminate monocular cues, supporting its potential in clinical stereotesting.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare Nursing-General Nursing
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
3.00%
发文量
287
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare (JMDH) aims to represent and publish research in healthcare areas delivered by practitioners of different disciplines. This includes studies and reviews conducted by multidisciplinary teams as well as research which evaluates or reports the results or conduct of such teams or healthcare processes in general. The journal covers a very wide range of areas and we welcome submissions from practitioners at all levels and from all over the world. Good healthcare is not bounded by person, place or time and the journal aims to reflect this. The JMDH is published as an open-access journal to allow this wide range of practical, patient relevant research to be immediately available to practitioners who can access and use it immediately upon publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信