May 2005
Volume 46, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2005
Validity and Repeatability of Two Direct Comparison Tests of Aniseikonia
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • F. Barra
    Univ Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • B. Antona
    Univ Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • A. Barrio
    Univ Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • E. González
    Univ Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • I. Sánchez
    Univ Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  F. Barra, None; B. Antona, None; A. Barrio, None; E. González, None; I. Sánchez, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  UCM Grant PR3/04–12368
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2005, Vol.46, 5639. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      F. Barra, B. Antona, A. Barrio, E. González, I. Sánchez; Validity and Repeatability of Two Direct Comparison Tests of Aniseikonia . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):5639.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Abstract: : Purpose: The New Aniseikonia Test (NAT) is a traditional hand test to measure aniseikonia, but several studies have shown that this direct comparison test underestimates the aniseikonia level. The Aniseikonia Inspector (AI) is a new software product to measure aniseikonia using red/green anaglyphs too. This study was designed to determine if the AI and/or the NAT are efficient and precise instruments to detect and quantify aniseikonia easily. Methods: The sample was form by two groups of subjects: Subjects at risk of suffering aniseikonia because their anisometropia was at least 1.00 D (N=30) and a control group (N=45). We induced aniseikonia by calibrated size lenses in the control group and we studied the validity of both instruments by comparison between the induced magnification and the measured aniseikonia. We estimated the repeatability and the concordance between tests in the two groups of subjects by using the statistical method of Bland and Altman. Results: The NAT and the AI underestimated induced aniseikonia, the underestimation factor was bigger in the horizontal direction than in the vertical one. Repeatability was low in both tests: the bias were clinically irrelevant but the limits of concordance at 95% were close to ±2%. So that in a re–test of aniseikonia only changes above ±2% could be attributed to a true visual change and not to imprecision of instruments. There was not any systematic difference between both tests, but there were more cases where the measure with AI was bigger than with NAT. Results were similar in the normal subjects and in the group of anisometropes. Conclusions: We conclude that both instruments are not valid to measure aniseikonia.

Keywords: binocular vision/stereopsis • clinical research methodology • shape, form, contour, object perception 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.