Cargando…
Evaluating stereoacuity with 3D shutter glasses technology
BACKGROUND: To determine the stereoacuity threshold with a 3D laptop equipped with 3D shutter glasses, and to evaluate the effect of different shape and size of test symbols and different type of disparities to stereoacuity. METHODS: Thirty subjects with a visual acuity in each eye of at least 0 log...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4845396/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27112418 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-016-0223-3 |
_version_ | 1782428935944929280 |
---|---|
author | Wu, Huang Jin, Han Sun, Ying Wang, Yang Ge, Min Chen, Yang Chi, Yunfeng |
author_facet | Wu, Huang Jin, Han Sun, Ying Wang, Yang Ge, Min Chen, Yang Chi, Yunfeng |
author_sort | Wu, Huang |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To determine the stereoacuity threshold with a 3D laptop equipped with 3D shutter glasses, and to evaluate the effect of different shape and size of test symbols and different type of disparities to stereoacuity. METHODS: Thirty subjects with a visual acuity in each eye of at least 0 logMAR and a stereoacuity of at least 32 arcsec (as assessed in Fly Stereo Acuity Test) were recruited. Three target symbols—tumbling "E", tumbling "C", and "□"—were displayed, each with six different sizes representing a visual acuity ranging from 0.5 to 0 logMAR when tested at 4.1 m, and with both crossed and uncrossed disparities. Two test systems were designed - fixed distance of 4.1 m and one for variable distance. The former has disparities ranging from 10 to 1000 arcsec. Each subject completed 36 trials to investigate the effect of different symbol sizes and shapes, and disparity types on stereoacuity. In the variable distance system, each subject was tested 12 times for the same purposes, both proximally and distally (the point where the 3D effect just appears and where it just disappears respectively), and the mean value was calculated from the mean proximal and distal distances. RESULTS: No significant difference was found among the groups in the fixed distance test system (Kruskal-Wallis test; Chi-square = 29.844, P = 0.715). Similarly, no significant difference was found in the variable distance system (Kruskal-Wallis test; proximal: Chi-square = 5.687, P = 0.338; distal: Chi-square = 5.898, P = 0.316; mean: Chi-square = 6.152, P = 0.292). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating stereoacuity using this measurement system was convenient and effective. Changes in target shape and size and disparity types had no significant effect on stereoacuity. It would be helpful to choose optimal targets according to different purposes using computer-assisted 3D measurements. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12886-016-0223-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4845396 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-48453962016-04-27 Evaluating stereoacuity with 3D shutter glasses technology Wu, Huang Jin, Han Sun, Ying Wang, Yang Ge, Min Chen, Yang Chi, Yunfeng BMC Ophthalmol Research Article BACKGROUND: To determine the stereoacuity threshold with a 3D laptop equipped with 3D shutter glasses, and to evaluate the effect of different shape and size of test symbols and different type of disparities to stereoacuity. METHODS: Thirty subjects with a visual acuity in each eye of at least 0 logMAR and a stereoacuity of at least 32 arcsec (as assessed in Fly Stereo Acuity Test) were recruited. Three target symbols—tumbling "E", tumbling "C", and "□"—were displayed, each with six different sizes representing a visual acuity ranging from 0.5 to 0 logMAR when tested at 4.1 m, and with both crossed and uncrossed disparities. Two test systems were designed - fixed distance of 4.1 m and one for variable distance. The former has disparities ranging from 10 to 1000 arcsec. Each subject completed 36 trials to investigate the effect of different symbol sizes and shapes, and disparity types on stereoacuity. In the variable distance system, each subject was tested 12 times for the same purposes, both proximally and distally (the point where the 3D effect just appears and where it just disappears respectively), and the mean value was calculated from the mean proximal and distal distances. RESULTS: No significant difference was found among the groups in the fixed distance test system (Kruskal-Wallis test; Chi-square = 29.844, P = 0.715). Similarly, no significant difference was found in the variable distance system (Kruskal-Wallis test; proximal: Chi-square = 5.687, P = 0.338; distal: Chi-square = 5.898, P = 0.316; mean: Chi-square = 6.152, P = 0.292). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating stereoacuity using this measurement system was convenient and effective. Changes in target shape and size and disparity types had no significant effect on stereoacuity. It would be helpful to choose optimal targets according to different purposes using computer-assisted 3D measurements. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12886-016-0223-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-04-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4845396/ /pubmed/27112418 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-016-0223-3 Text en © Wu et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Wu, Huang Jin, Han Sun, Ying Wang, Yang Ge, Min Chen, Yang Chi, Yunfeng Evaluating stereoacuity with 3D shutter glasses technology |
title | Evaluating stereoacuity with 3D shutter glasses technology |
title_full | Evaluating stereoacuity with 3D shutter glasses technology |
title_fullStr | Evaluating stereoacuity with 3D shutter glasses technology |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating stereoacuity with 3D shutter glasses technology |
title_short | Evaluating stereoacuity with 3D shutter glasses technology |
title_sort | evaluating stereoacuity with 3d shutter glasses technology |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4845396/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27112418 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-016-0223-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wuhuang evaluatingstereoacuitywith3dshutterglassestechnology AT jinhan evaluatingstereoacuitywith3dshutterglassestechnology AT sunying evaluatingstereoacuitywith3dshutterglassestechnology AT wangyang evaluatingstereoacuitywith3dshutterglassestechnology AT gemin evaluatingstereoacuitywith3dshutterglassestechnology AT chenyang evaluatingstereoacuitywith3dshutterglassestechnology AT chiyunfeng evaluatingstereoacuitywith3dshutterglassestechnology |