4.6 Article

A new 3D monitor-based random-dot stereotest for children

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 47, Issue 11, Pages 4842-4846

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0238

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. Objective testing for random-dot stereovision in pre-verbal children requires some type of dissociating glasses. Drawbacks of such methods are the alteration of natural visual conditions and sometimes nonacceptance of the glasses. For this reason, a new, natural method for random-dot stereopsis measurement was developed and tested. METHODS. Random-dot circles (diameter 10 cm, crossed disparity of 0.34) were generated on an autostereoscopic display and presented to 18 normal children (mean age, 5.1 +/- 1.1 years), 8 with anisometropic amblyopia (mean age, 4.9 +/- 1.3 years), 14 with infantile essential esotropia (mean age, 5.3 +/- 0.7 years), and 16 with primary microstrabismus (mean age, 5.2 +/- 1.4 years). While the position of the stimulus randomly changed among four possible locations, eye positions were recorded by infrared photo-oculography. If two or more consecutive saccades ends corresponded to the stimulus coordinates, a positive response was assumed. The results with the new test were compared with the ability to recognize the Lang I random-dot stereotest. RESULTS. Twenty-four of 26 Lang I-positive children had positive responses (sensitivity of 92.3%), 29 of 30 Lang I-negative children had negative three-dimensional (3D) stimulus responses (specificity, 96.7%). The positive predictive value of the new test was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.79 - 0.99); the negative predictive value, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.78 - 0.99); and the overall accuracy, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.85 - 0.99). CONCLUSIONS. This new 3D monitor - based test allows objective assessment of random-dot stereopsis in children older than 3 years.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available