Stereotest Comparison: Efficacy, Reliability, and Variability of a New Glasses-Free Stereotest

Binocular vision measurements with a new online digital platform: comparison with conventional clinical measures

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

New digital systems are being developed for evaluating different aspects of the visual function, such as binocularity, and it is important to know their real performance in clinical practice in order to use them appropriately.

BACKGROUND

The aim was to compare binocular vision measures obtained with an online digital platform with conventional measures using prisms and printed tests.

METHODS

Prospective study enrolling 49 healthy patients (mean age: 35.5 ± 13.6 years). A complete visual examination was performed including measurement of near phoria (cover test), negative fusional vergence (NFV) and positive fusional vergence (PFV) ranges (prism bar), and stereopsis (24 patients Randot Stereo Test and 25 patients TNO Random Dot Test 19th edition). These same parameters were also measured with the Bynocs system (Kanohi Eye Pvt Ltd). Bland - Altman plots were used to analyse the agreement between methods.

RESULTS

Digital measurement of near phoria was significantly lower than that obtained with the cover test, with a median difference (MD) of 4.71 (-0.07-20.07) prism dioptres (pd) (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between Bynocs and prism bar methods in NFV break (MD 2.00, range -21-26 pd, p = 0.584) and recovery points (MD 0.00, range -16-24 pd, p = .571). Near PFV were significantly lower with Bynocs (break: MD -9.00, range -38-12 pd; recovery: MD -14.00, range -43-20 pd; p < 0.001). Bynocs stereoacuity threshold was significantly lower than that obtained with TNO (p = 0.004), but significantly higher compared to Randot (p < 0.001). Large and clinically relevant confidence intervals for the comparison between digital and conventional measures were detected in Passing-Bablok analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital measures of near phoria, NFV, PFV, and stereopsis with the Bynocs platform cannot be used interchangeably with conventional measures. The normal ranges of normality for this new tool are defined.

Comparison of Foraging Interactive D-prime and Angular Indication Measurement Stereo with different methods to assess stereopsis

PURPOSE

Stereopsis is a critical visual function, however clinical stereotests are time-consuming, coarse in resolution, suffer memorization artifacts, poor repeatability, and low agreement with other tests. Foraging Interactive D-prime (FInD) Stereo and Angular Indication Measurement (AIM) Stereo were designed to address these problems. Here, their performance was compared with 2-Alternative-Forced-Choice (2-AFC) paradigms (FInD Stereo only) and clinical tests (Titmus and Randot) in 40 normally-sighted and 5 binocularly impaired participants (FInD Stereo only).

METHODS

During FInD tasks, participants indicated which cells in three 4*4 charts of bandpass-filtered targets (1,2,4,8c/° conditions) contained depth, compared with 2-AFC and clinical tests. During the AIM task, participants reported the orientation of depth-defined bars in three 4*4 charts. Stereoscopic disparity was adaptively changed after each chart. Inter-test agreement, repeatability and duration were compared.

RESULTS

Test duration was significantly longer for 2-AFC (mean = 317s;79s per condition) than FInD (216s,18s per chart), AIM (179s, 60s per chart), Titmus (66s) or RanDot (97s). Estimates of stereoacuity differed across tests and were higher by a factor of 1.1 for AIM and 1.3 for FInD. No effect of stimulus spatial frequency was found. Agreement among tests was generally low (R2 = 0.001 to 0.24) and was highest between FInD and 2-AFC (R2 = 0.24;p<0.01). Stereoacuity deficits were detected by all tests in binocularly impaired participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Agreement among all tests was low. FInD and AIM inter-test agreement was comparable with other methods. FInD Stereo detected stereo deficits and may only require one condition to identify these deficits. AIM and FInD are response-adaptive, self-administrable methods that can estimate stereoacuity reliably within one minute.

Evaluation of 3D tablet-based stereoacuity test ASTEROID in children with normal and abnormal visual acuity

PURPOSE

To assess the utility of 3D, tablet-based, glasses-free Accurate STEReotest (ASTEROID) in children compared with the Titmus test.

METHODS

Children aged 5-13 years were enrolled in a single-center, nonrandomized, observational comparison study and analyzed by age (5-7 vs 8-13 years) and visual acuity (20/25 or better in both eyes vs abnormal). Each participant underwent both the ASTEROID and Titmus stereoacuity tests. Stereoacuity was defined as fine (≤60 arcsec), moderate (61-200 arcsec), coarse (201-1199 arcsec), or very coarse to nil (≥1200 arcsec). Agreement between the tests was assessed using a weighted kappa (κ) statistic based on all four categories.

RESULTS

A total of 112 children were included: 28 aged 5-7 with normal visual acuity, 30 aged 5-7 with abnormal visual acuity, 34 aged 8-13 with normal visual acuity, and 20 aged 8-13 with abnormal visual acuity. Mean ASTEROID score was 688 ± 533 arcsec (range, 13-1200 arcsec). Agreement between ASTEROID and Titmus test scores for participants overall was moderate (κ = 0.52). By subgroup, agreement was fair for children 5-7 with abnormal visual acuity (κ = 0.31), moderate for children 5-7 with normal visual acuity (κ = 0.47) and children 8-13 with normal visual acuity (κ = 0.42), and substantial for children 8-13 with abnormal visual acuity (κ = 0.76). Where ASTEROID and Titmus score group varied, ASTEROID score was poorer in 94% (47/50) of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

ASTEROID is a digital, tablet-based test that evaluates global stereopsis, does not require glasses, and provides a continuum of scores. Among children, ASTEROID has good agreement with the Titmus test; however, it may be more sensitive at detecting stereovision deficits. Further study is necessary to determine which test is more accurate.

Binocular Summation With Quantitative Contrast Sensitivity Function: A Novel Parameter to Evaluate Binocular Function in Intermittent Exotropia

Purpose

Intermittent exotropia (IXT) is the most common form of strabismus. Surgery can potentially improve binocular function in patients with IXT. We aimed to evaluate binocular function using a novel parameter-binocular summation ratio (BSR), measured using quantitative contrast sensitivity function (CSF) in patients with IXT before and after surgery.

Methods

Prospective study of 63 patients with IXT and 41 healthy controls were consecutively enrolled and underwent quantitative CSF testing binocularly and monocularly. BSR was calculated by dividing the CSF of the binocular value by the better monocular value. Forty-eight patients with IXT underwent strabismus surgery. BSR, stereoacuity, fusion ability, and strabismus questionnaires were assessed pre-operatively and 2 months postoperatively.

Results

Sixty-three patients with IXT (median age = 9 years) compared with 41 healthy controls showed a worse mean BSR based on all CSF metrics at baseline (the area under the log CSF [AULCSF], spatial frequency [SF] cutoff, and contrast sensitivity at 1.0-18.0 cpd SF). All 48 patients with IXT showed successful alignment after surgery, and there were significant improvements in BSR based on the AULCSF, SF cutoff, and contrast sensitivity at 6.0, 12.0, and 18.0 cpd SF, respectively. The distance stereoacuity and fusion ability also improved after surgery, and a better BSR was associated with better stereoacuity and fusion. For strabismus questionnaires, the psychosocial subscale scores improved postoperatively, whereas the functional subscale scores did not change.

Conclusions

BSR based on quantitative CSF can characterize binocular function across a range of spatial frequencies and can be used as a supplemental measurement for monitoring binocularity in patients with IXT in clinical settings.

Comparison of stereopsis thresholds measured with conventional methods and a new eye tracking method

PURPOSE

Stereopsis is the ability to perceive depth using the slightly different views from two eyes. This study aims to conduct innovative stereopsis tests using the objective data outputted by eye tracking technology.

METHODS

A laptop and an eye tracker were used to establish the test system. Anaglyphic glasses were employed to execute the stereopsis assessment. The test symbol employed was devised to emulate the quantitative measurement component of the Random Dot 3 Stereo Acuity Test. Sub-pixel technology was used to increase the disparity accuracy of test pages. The tested disparities were: 160″, 100″, 63″, 50″, 40″, 32″, 25″, 20″, 16″, and 12.5″. The test was conducted at a distance of 0.65m. Conventional and eye tracking stereopsis assessments were conducted on 120 subjects. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test the difference, while the Bland-Altman method was used to test the consistency between the two methods.

RESULTS

The Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed no significant difference between conventional and eye tracking thresholds of stereopsis (Z = -1.497, P = 0.134). There was a high level of agreement between the two methods using Bland- Altman statistical analysis (The 95 per cent limits of agreement were -0.40 to 0.47 log arcsec).

CONCLUSIONS

Stereoacuity can be evaluated utilizing an innovative stereopsis measurement system grounded in eye tracking technology.

Test retest variability in stereoacuity measurements

Background: A clinician's choice of stereotest is influenced by the robustness of the measurement, in terms of sensitivity, specificity and test-retest variability. In relation to the latter aspect, there are limited data on the test-retest variability of these new tests and how they compare to the more commonly used stereotests. Therefore, the aim of the study was to determine the test-retest variability of four different measures of stereoacuity (TNO, Frisby, Lang Stereopad and Asteroid (Accurate STEReotest On a mobIle Device)) and to compare the stereoacuity measurements between the tests in an adult population. Methods: Stereoacuity was measured twice using TNO, Frisby, Lang Stereopad and Asteroid. Inclusion criteria included adult participants (18 years and older), no known ophthalmic condition and VA (Visual Acuity) equal to or better than 0.3 logMAR (Logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution) with interocular difference of less than 0.2 logMAR. Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess agreement within and between stereotests. Differences in stereo thresholds were compared using signed Wilcoxon tests. Results: Fifty-four adults (male: 23 and female: 31) with VA equal to or better than 0.3 logMAR in either eye and interocular difference less than 0.2 logMAR were assessed (mean age: 38 years, SD: 12.7, range: 18-72). The test-retest variability of all the clinical stereotests, with the exception of the Lang Stereopad (p = .03, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), was clinically insignificant as the mean bias was equal or less than 0.06 log seconds of arc (equivalent to 1.15 seconds of arc). While the Asteroid test had the smallest variation between repeated measures (mean bias: -0.01 log seconds of arc), the Frisby and Lang Stereopad tests had the narrowest and widest limits of agreement respectively. When comparing results between tests, the biggest mean bias was between Frisby and Lang Stereopad (-0.62 log seconds of arc), and 64.8% and 31.5% of differences were in the medium (21-100" of arc) and larger (>100" of arc) ranges respectively. Conclusion: The TNO and Frisby tests have good reliability but measure stereoacuity over a narrower range compared to the Asteroid which shows less variation on repeated testing but has a larger testing range. The data reported here show varying degrees of agreement in a cohort of visually normal participants, and further investigation is required to determine if there is further variability when stereoacuity is reduced.

The eRDS v6 Stereotest and the Vivid Vision Stereo Test: Two New Tests of Stereoscopic Vision

Purpose

To describe two new stereoacuity tests: the eRDS v6 stereotest, a global dynamic random dot stereogram (dRDS) test, and the Vivid Vision Stereo Test version 2 (VV), a local or "contour" stereotest for virtual reality (VR) headsets; and to evaluate the tests' reliability, validity compared to a dRDS standard, and learning effects.

Methods

Sixty-four subjects passed a battery of stereotests, including perceiving depth from RDS. Validity was evaluated relative to a tablet-based dRDS reference test, ASTEROID. Reliability and learning effects were assessed over six sessions.

Results

eRDS v6 was effective at measuring small thresholds (<10 arcsec) and had a moderate correlation (0.48) with ASTEROID. Across the six sessions, test-retest reliability was good, varying from 0.84 to 0.91, but learning occurred across the first three sessions. VV did not measure stereoacuities below 15 arcsec. It had a weak correlation with ASTEROID (0.27), and test-retest reliability was poor to moderate, varying from 0.35 to 0.74; however, no learning occurred between sessions.

Conclusions

eRDS v6 is precise and reliable but shows learning effects. If repeated three times at baseline, this test is well suited as an outcome measure for testing interventions. VV is less precise, but it is easy and rapid and shows no learning. It may be useful for testing interventions in patients who have no global stereopsis.

Translational Relevance

eRDS v6 is well suited as an outcome measure to evaluate treatments that improve adult stereodepth perception. VV can be considered for screening patient with compromised stereovision.

Monovision Correction Preference and Eye Dominance Measurements

Purpose

To propose new methods for eye selection in presbyopic monovision corrections.

Methods

Twenty subjects with presbyopia performed two standard methods of binary eye dominance identification (sensory with +1.50 diopters [D ]and +0.50 D and sighting with "hole-in-the-card") and two psychophysical methods of perceived visual quality: (1) the Preferential test, 26 natural images were judged with the near addition in one eye or in the other in a 2-interval forced-choice task, and the Eye Dominance Strength (EDS) defined as the proportion of trials where one monovision is preferred over the other; (2) the Multifocal Acceptance Score (MAS-2EV) test, the perceived quality of a natural images set (for 2 luminance levels and distances) was scored and EDS defined as the score difference between monovision in one eye or the other. Left-eye and right-eye dominance are indicated with negative and positive values, respectively. Tests were performed using a Simultaneous Vision Simulator, which allows rapid changes between corrections.

Results

Standard sensory and sighting dominances matched in only 55% of subjects. The Preferential EDS (ranging from -0.7 to +0.9) and MAS-2EV EDS (ranging from -0.6 to +0.4) were highly correlated. Selecting the eye for far in monovision with the MAS-2EV, sensory, or sighting tests would have resulted in 79%, 64%, and 43% success considering the Preferential test as the gold standard.

Conclusions

Tests based on perceptual preference allow selection of the preferred monovision correction and measurement of dominance strength.

Translational Relevance

The binocular visual simulator allows efficient implementation of eye preference tests for monovision in clinical use.

Amblyopia: A review of unmet needs, current treatment options, and emerging therapies

Amblyopia is a global public health issue with extensive, multifaceted impacts on vision and quality of life (QoL) for both patients and families. Geographical variation exists in the management of amblyopia, with traditional mainstay treatments, optical correction, and fellow eye occlusion most successful when implemented at an early age. In recent years, however, studies demonstrating meaningful improvements in older children and adults have challenged the concept of a complete loss of visual processing plasticity beyond the critical period of visual development, with growing evidence supporting the potential efficacy of emerging, more engaging, binocular therapies in both adults and children. Binocular approaches aim to restore deficits in amblyopia that extend beyond monocular visual acuity impairment, including binocular fusion and visuomotor skills. In view of this, incorporating outcome measures that evaluate the visual performance and functional ability of individuals with amblyopia will provide a clearer understanding of the effect of amblyopia on QoL and a more comprehensive evaluation of amblyopia therapies.

Applications and implications for extended reality to improve binocular vision and stereopsis

Extended reality (XR) devices, including virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR) devices, are immersive technologies that can swap or merge the natural environment with virtual content (e.g., videogames, movies, or other content). Although these devices are widely used for playing videogames and other applications, they have one distinct feature that makes them potentially very useful for the measurement and treatment of binocular vision anomalies-they can deliver different content to the two eyes simultaneously. Indeed, horizontally shifting the images in the two eyes (thereby creating binocular disparity) can provide the user with a compelling percept of depth through stereopsis. Because these devices are stereoscopic, they can also be used as high-tech synoptophores, in which the images to the two eyes differ in contrast, luminance, size, position, and content for measuring and treating binocular anomalies. The inclusion of eye tracking in VR adds an additional dimension to its utility in measuring and treating binocular vision anomalies, as well as other conditions. This paper describes the essential requirements for testing and treating binocular anomalies and reviews current studies in which XR devices have been used to measure and treat binocular vision anomalies.

A Digital Alternative to the TNO Stereo Test to Qualify Military Aircrew

INTRODUCTION: Stereopsis is usually required in military aviators and may become increasingly important with reliance on newer technologies such as binocular Helmet-Mounted Displays (HMDs) and stereo displays. The current stereo test used to qualify UK military aircrew (TNO test) has many limitations. To address these limitations, two computer-based digital versions of a random dot stereogram (RDS) were developed: a static version (dRDS-S), and a version in which the dots appear to move dynamically within the depth plane (dRDS-D), both capable of measuring stereo acuity to threshold.METHODS: There were 41 participants who performed all 3 stereo tests, TNO and both digital dRDS tests, on two separate occasions.RESULTS: The best (lowest) mean stereo acuity threshold was measured with dRDS-S (33.79 arcseconds, range 12.64-173) and the worst mean stereo acuity thresholds were measured with the TNO test (91 arcseconds, range 60-240). Both dRDS tests were strongly correlated, but neither correlated with the TNO test. Both dRDS tests were more reliable, as indicated with tighter limits of agreement.DISCUSSION: With a large floor effect at 60 arcseconds, the TNO test was unable to characterize any finer degree of stereo acuity. Both dRDS tests demonstrated better test-retest reliability and addressed many of the limitations seen with the TNO test. The dRDS tests were not correlated with the TNO test, which suggests that the TNO test does not provide the accuracy or reliability for use as a meaningful aeromedical screening test. The dRDS tests will enable research to investigate the relationship between stereo acuity and operational performance.Posselt BN, Seemiller E, Winterbottom M, Baber C, Hadley S. A digital alternative to the TNO stereo test to qualify military aircrew. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2022; 93(12):846-854.

ASTEROID stereotest v1.0: lower stereo thresholds using smaller, denser and faster dots

PURPOSE

In 2019, we described ASTEROID, a new stereotest run on a 3D tablet computer which involves a four-alternative disparity detection task on a dynamic random-dot stereogram. Stereo thresholds measured with ASTEROID were well correlated with, but systematically higher than (by a factor of around 1.5), thresholds measured with previous laboratory stereotests or the Randot Preschool clinical stereotest. We speculated that this might be due to the relatively large, sparse dots used in ASTEROID v0.9. Here, we introduce and test the stereo thresholds and test-repeatability of the new ASTEROID v1.0, which uses precomputed images to allow stereograms made up of much smaller, denser dots.

METHODS

Stereo thresholds and test/retest repeatability were tested and compared between the old and new versions of ASTEROID (n = 75) and the Randot Circles (n = 31) stereotest, in healthy young adults.

RESULTS

Thresholds on ASTEROID v1.0 are lower (better) than on ASTEROID v0.9 by a factor of 1.4, and do not differ significantly from thresholds on the Randot Circles. Thresholds were roughly log-normally distributed with a mean of 1.54 log₁₀ arcsec (35 arcsec) on ASTEROID v1.0 compared to 1.70 log₁₀ arcsec (50 arcsec) on ASTEROID v0.9. The standard deviation between observers was the same for both versions, 0.32 log₁₀ arcsec, corresponding to a factor of 2 above and below the mean. There was no difference between the versions in their test/retest repeatability, with 95% coefficient of repeatability = 0.46 log₁₀ arcsec (a factor of 2.9 or 1.5 octaves) and a Pearson correlation of 0.8 (comparable to other clinical stereotests).

CONCLUSION

The poorer stereo thresholds previously reported with ASTEROID v0.9 appear to have been due to the relatively large, coarse dots and low density used, rather than to some other aspect of the technology. Employing the small dots and high density used in ASTEROID v1.0, thresholds and test/retest repeatability are similar to other clinical stereotests.