Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science Cover Image for Volume 65, Issue 7
June 2024
Volume 65, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2024
Stereoanomaly cannot be reliably detected with clinical stereotests
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Robin Clayton
    Optometry and Vision Sciences, University of Huddersfield School of Applied Sciences, Huddersfield, United Kingdom
  • John Siderov
    Optometry and Vision Sciences, University of Huddersfield School of Applied Sciences, Huddersfield, United Kingdom
  • Baskar Theagarayan
    Optometry and Vision Sciences, University of Huddersfield School of Applied Sciences, Huddersfield, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Robin Clayton None; John Siderov None; Baskar Theagarayan None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2024, Vol.65, 3064. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Robin Clayton, John Siderov, Baskar Theagarayan; Stereoanomaly cannot be reliably detected with clinical stereotests. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2024;65(7):3064.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : The prevalence of stereoanomaly, an inability to correctly detect either crossed or uncrosed binocular disparity, is contested. We performed a cross-sectional study to determine the prevalence of stereoanomaly and to establish normative clinical values for crossed and uncrossed stereoacuity.

Methods : Crossed and uncrossed stereoacuity was measured across four visits on a sample of 46 visually normal adults using three stereotests (Randot, TNO, Frisby). Interleaved staircases, random presentation and an extended range of disparity levels were used to mitigate inherent limitations of clinical stereotests.

Results : Three-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant main effects of visit (p<0.01), stereotest (p<0.01) and disparity direction (p<0.01). Significant interactions between visit and stereotest (p=0.02) and stereotest and disparity direction (p<0.01) were also found. Seven participants (15.2%) exhibited a difference of at least two-doublings between crossed and uncrossed stereoacuity, but only with the Randot test. We propose normative crossed and uncrossed stereoacuity ranges, based on 95% confidence intervals, and a suggested upper limit for a normal result, for both single and repeated measurements (Table 1).

Conclusions : Differences between crossed and uncrossed stereoacuity, although statistically significant, were small and inconsistent across the three stereotests. No stereoanomalous individuals were identified. Test-related factors on the Randot test, rather than a physiological cause, are likely responsible for the more marked differences between crossed and uncrossed stereoacuity in some individuals with this test. Small differences are unlikely to be clinically relevant, thus either disparity direction can be used to clinically assess stereopsis in adults. Our results provide expected levels of stereoacuity in visually normal adults. Further investigation into the existence of stereoanomaly, and whether it can be reliably detected clinically, is warranted.

This abstract was presented at the 2024 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, WA, May 5-9, 2024.

 

Table 1: Normative stereoacuity (arcsecs) ranges (mean ±2SE) and an upper normal limit (UL) for each stereotest and disparity direction.

Table 1: Normative stereoacuity (arcsecs) ranges (mean ±2SE) and an upper normal limit (UL) for each stereotest and disparity direction.

×
×

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.

×