Original Article
The difference in stereoacuity testing: contour-based and random dot-based graphs at far and near distances
Abstract
Background: Different methods to test stereopsis lead to different results. The aim of this study was to investigate the difference between stereoacuity tests using contour-based and random dot-based graphs at far and near distances.
Methods: Thirty participants with normal visual acuity and stereopsis were recruited. Laptop equipment 3D shutter glasses were used to test distance stereoacuity and two 4K smartphones were used to test near stereoacuity with contour-based and random dot-based graphs.
Results: No significant difference was found between contour-based and random-dot graphs regardless of the distance. Similarly, no significant difference between far and near distance was found for contour-based or random-dot graphs (Wilcoxon signed-rank test: P values were all >0.05). There was a high level of agreement between the methods using Bland-Altman statistical analysis.
Conclusions: In a population with normal stereopsis, the stereoacuity is stable regardless of the test graphs used (contour-based or random-dot based) or the test distance (far or near).
Methods: Thirty participants with normal visual acuity and stereopsis were recruited. Laptop equipment 3D shutter glasses were used to test distance stereoacuity and two 4K smartphones were used to test near stereoacuity with contour-based and random dot-based graphs.
Results: No significant difference was found between contour-based and random-dot graphs regardless of the distance. Similarly, no significant difference between far and near distance was found for contour-based or random-dot graphs (Wilcoxon signed-rank test: P values were all >0.05). There was a high level of agreement between the methods using Bland-Altman statistical analysis.
Conclusions: In a population with normal stereopsis, the stereoacuity is stable regardless of the test graphs used (contour-based or random-dot based) or the test distance (far or near).
