Cargando…
Binocular non-stereoscopic cues can deceive clinical tests of stereopsis
Stereoscopic vision plays a critical role in visual perception; however, it is difficult to assess. In clinical settings, stereoacuity is assessed with clinical stereotests. Observers can use monocular cues to deceive some of the most common stereotests, such as the Titmus test. The Randot test has...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6453951/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30962466 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42149-2 |
_version_ | 1783409472310345728 |
---|---|
author | Chopin, Adrien Chan, Samantha Wenyan Guellai, Bahia Bavelier, Daphné Levi, Dennis Michael |
author_facet | Chopin, Adrien Chan, Samantha Wenyan Guellai, Bahia Bavelier, Daphné Levi, Dennis Michael |
author_sort | Chopin, Adrien |
collection | PubMed |
description | Stereoscopic vision plays a critical role in visual perception; however, it is difficult to assess. In clinical settings, stereoacuity is assessed with clinical stereotests. Observers can use monocular cues to deceive some of the most common stereotests, such as the Titmus test. The Randot test has been found free of monocular cues, and here we confirm that result by testing observers under monocular viewing. However, there is a common misconception that only monocular cues can be used to deceive stereotests. Here we demonstrate that binocular non-stereoscopic cues can also be used to pass the Randot, by testing participants with the test rotated, a condition that abolishes stereopsis, and comparing the performance to a monocular viewing condition. We also assessed the Random Dot Butterfly test and discovered considerable amounts of non-stereoscopic cues, including binocular cues in the Circles that can be used to deceive the test. Participants with amblyopia had more difficulty using non-stereoscopic cues than neurotypical observers. We gathered normal-viewing Randot stereoacuities for 110 participants (90 neurotypical and 20 with amblyopia) and compared them to psychophysical stereoacuities (our gold standard). The Randot test showed low positive normalized predictive values for detecting stereoblindness. It could perfectly detect stereo-impairment but with a low sensitivity. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6453951 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64539512019-04-12 Binocular non-stereoscopic cues can deceive clinical tests of stereopsis Chopin, Adrien Chan, Samantha Wenyan Guellai, Bahia Bavelier, Daphné Levi, Dennis Michael Sci Rep Article Stereoscopic vision plays a critical role in visual perception; however, it is difficult to assess. In clinical settings, stereoacuity is assessed with clinical stereotests. Observers can use monocular cues to deceive some of the most common stereotests, such as the Titmus test. The Randot test has been found free of monocular cues, and here we confirm that result by testing observers under monocular viewing. However, there is a common misconception that only monocular cues can be used to deceive stereotests. Here we demonstrate that binocular non-stereoscopic cues can also be used to pass the Randot, by testing participants with the test rotated, a condition that abolishes stereopsis, and comparing the performance to a monocular viewing condition. We also assessed the Random Dot Butterfly test and discovered considerable amounts of non-stereoscopic cues, including binocular cues in the Circles that can be used to deceive the test. Participants with amblyopia had more difficulty using non-stereoscopic cues than neurotypical observers. We gathered normal-viewing Randot stereoacuities for 110 participants (90 neurotypical and 20 with amblyopia) and compared them to psychophysical stereoacuities (our gold standard). The Randot test showed low positive normalized predictive values for detecting stereoblindness. It could perfectly detect stereo-impairment but with a low sensitivity. Nature Publishing Group UK 2019-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6453951/ /pubmed/30962466 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42149-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as 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 images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Chopin, Adrien Chan, Samantha Wenyan Guellai, Bahia Bavelier, Daphné Levi, Dennis Michael Binocular non-stereoscopic cues can deceive clinical tests of stereopsis |
title | Binocular non-stereoscopic cues can deceive clinical tests of stereopsis |
title_full | Binocular non-stereoscopic cues can deceive clinical tests of stereopsis |
title_fullStr | Binocular non-stereoscopic cues can deceive clinical tests of stereopsis |
title_full_unstemmed | Binocular non-stereoscopic cues can deceive clinical tests of stereopsis |
title_short | Binocular non-stereoscopic cues can deceive clinical tests of stereopsis |
title_sort | binocular non-stereoscopic cues can deceive clinical tests of stereopsis |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6453951/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30962466 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42149-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chopinadrien binocularnonstereoscopiccuescandeceiveclinicaltestsofstereopsis AT chansamanthawenyan binocularnonstereoscopiccuescandeceiveclinicaltestsofstereopsis AT guellaibahia binocularnonstereoscopiccuescandeceiveclinicaltestsofstereopsis AT bavelierdaphne binocularnonstereoscopiccuescandeceiveclinicaltestsofstereopsis AT levidennismichael binocularnonstereoscopiccuescandeceiveclinicaltestsofstereopsis |