Laurence P. Tidbury

A Systematic Comparison of Static and Dynamic Cues for Depth Perception.

PURPOSE A clinical diagnosis of stereoblindness does not necessarily preclude compelling depth perception. Qualitative observations suggest that this may be due to the dynamic nature of the stimuli. The purpose of this study was to systematically investigate the effectiveness of static and dynamic stereoscopic stimuli. METHODS Stereoscopic stimuli were presented on a passive polarized stereoscopic monitor and were manipulated as follows: static disparity (baseline condition), dynamic disparity (change in z-location), change in stimulus pattern, change in z-location with pattern change, change in x-location (horizontal shift), a control (nil-disparity signal). All depth-detection thresholds were measured simultaneously using an adaptive four-alternative-forced-choice (4AFC) paradigm with all six conditions randomly interleaved. RESULTS A total of 127 participants (85 women, 42 men; mean [SD] age, 21 [5] years) with visual acuity better than 0.22 logMAR in both eyes were assessed. In comparison to the static disparity condition, depth-detection thresholds were up to 50% lower for the dynamic disparity conditions, with and without pattern change (P < 0.001). The presence of a changing pattern in isolation (P = 0.71) or a horizontal shift (P = 0.41) did not affect the thresholds. CONCLUSIONS Dynamic disparity information facilitates the extraction of depth in comparison to static disparity signals. This finding may account for the compelling perception of depth reported in individuals with no measurable static stereoacuity. Our findings challenge the traditional definition of stereoblindness and suggest that current diagnostic tests using static stimuli may be suboptimal. We argue that both static and dynamic stimuli should be employed to fully assess the binocular potential of patients when considering management options.

Clinical Assessment of Stereoacuity and 3-D Stereoscopic Entertainment.

Abstract Background/Aims: The perception of compelling depth is often reported in individuals where no clinically measurable stereoacuity is apparent. We aim to investigate the potential cause of this finding by varying the amount of stereopsis available to the subject, and assessing their perception of depth viewing 3-D video clips and a Nintendo 3DS. Methods: Monocular blur was used to vary interocular VA difference, consequently creating 4 levels of measurable binocular deficit from normal stereoacuity to suppression. Stereoacuity was assessed at each level using the TNO, Preschool Randot®, Frisby, the FD2, and Distance Randot®. Subjects also completed an object depth identification task using the Nintendo 3DS, a static 3DTV stereoacuity test, and a 3-D perception rating task of 6 video clips. Results: As intraocular VA differences increased, stereoacuity of the 57 subjects (aged 16–62 years) decreased (eg, 110”, 280”, 340”, and suppression). The ability to correctly identify depth on the Nintendo 3DS remained at 100% until suppression of one eye occurred. The perception of a compelling 3-D effect when viewing the video clips was rated high until suppression of one eye occurred, where the 3-D effect was still reported as fairly evident. Conclusion: If an individual has any level of measurable stereoacuity, the perception of 3-D when viewing stereoscopic entertainment is present. The presence of motion in stereoscopic video appears to provide cues to depth, where static cues are not sufficient. This suggests there is a need for a dynamic test of stereoacuity to be developed, to allow fully informed patient management decisions to be made.

Normative Values for Near and Distance Clinical Tests of Stereoacuity

ABSTRACT Purpose: Extensive literature exists on normative stereoacuity values for younger children, but there is less information about normative stereoacuity in older children/adults. Individual stereotests cannot be used interchangeably—knowing the upper limit of normality for each test is important. This report details normative stereoacuity values for 5 near/distance stereotests drawn from a large sample of participants aged 16-40 years, across 3 studies. Methods: Participants (n=206, mean age 22.18±5.31 years) were administered the following stereotests: TNO, Preschool Randot, Frisby, Distance Randot, and Frisby-Davis 2. Medians and upper limits were calculated for each test. Results: Upper limits for each stereotest were as follows: TNO (n=127, upper limit=120” arc), Preschool Randot (PSR, n=206, upper limit=70” arc), Frisby (n=206, upper limit=40” arc), Distance Randot (n=127, upper limit=160” arc), and Frisby-Davis 2 (n=109, upper limit=25” arc). Conclusions: Normative values for each stereotest are identified and discussed with respect to other studies. Potential sources of variation between tests, within testing distances, are also discussed.

Testing vision testing: quantifying the effect of movement on visual acuity measurement.

PurposeAssessment of visual acuity (VA) has been shown to vary between tests, which may be attributable in part to test inaccuracies, such as a change in the distance between the chart and subject. Therefore, the study aim was to quantify changes in chart/patient separation during near and distance VA testing, and to analyse the relationship between VA and movement observed.MethodsVolunteer orthoptists and subjects were filmed during near and distance VA testing, with the amount of movement determined from the recording. Controlling for movement using chin rests and chart stands, VA was retested. Actual changes in VA due to a change in subject or chart movement were compared with theoretical predictions.ResultsFifty-one subjects (18–73 years) were assessed. Median (interquartile) movements of 0.06 m (0.07) towards and 0.11 m (0.08) away from the chart were measured (maximum 0.17 m towards and 0.24 m away). Significant differences in VA score were measured when movement was restricted, at near and distance (P<0.05). VA score change agreed with predicted values in 67% of the cases, however, reduced test distance during near vision testing resulted in a degradation of VA, opposite to the improvement expected.ConclusionThere were significant variations in subject/chart separation during testing, which could have affected VA values. While this movement is associated with a change in VA, additional factors to movement appear to influence the score achieved during near testing. Procedures to minimise variation, by eliminating movement of test chart or subject, will improve VA test accuracy.

Stereopsis: are we assessing it in enough depth?

The assessment of stereoacuity is an integral part of the ophthalmic assessment, with the responses used to inform clinical management decisions. Stereoacuity impacts on many aspects of life, but there are discrepancies reported where people without measurable stereoacuity report appreciating 3‐D vision. This could be due, in part, to the presentation of the stimuli. A literature review was undertaken to evaluate current assessment techniques, how they relate to patient outcomes, identify the limitations of current tests and discuss how they could be improved. Recent evidence has been collated on currently available tests, used commonly within vision clinics, with normative data provided allowing responses to the tests to be interpreted. The relevance of the results is evaluated in relation to a range of outcomes, where a reduced level of stereopsis has a negative impact on the ability of an individual to perform many tasks, and can lead to an increase in difficulty interacting in the world. Current tests are limited in the aspects of stereoacuity they assess and their ability to precisely measure stereopsis. The world is not static, yet clinical tests are limited to measuring static stereoacuity, even though higher grades of depth perception can be identified in the presence of changing depth. Presentation methods of stereoacuity tests have remained similar over time, with a limited number of disparity levels assessed. New assessment methods are becoming available that include automated staircase testing to present multiple levels of disparity using digital technology. Current clinical tests are limited in their presentation, and are poor at detecting/measuring stereoacuity in those with limited stereopsis. Given the relevance of the stereoacuity measurement to management choices and functional outcomes, new testing methods would be beneficial to fully assess stereoacuity, both static and dynamic.