Cargando…

Evaluation of a Virtual Reality implementation of a binocular imbalance test

The purpose of this study was (1) to implement a test for binocular imbalance in a Virtual Reality headset, (2) to assess its testability, reliability and outcomes in a population of clinical patients and (3) to evaluate the relationships of interocular acuity difference, stereoacuity and binocular...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Martín, Santiago, Portela, Juan A., Ding, Jian, Ibarrondo, Oliver, Levi, Dennis M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7446887/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32822405
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238047
_version_ 1783574209276936192
author Martín, Santiago
Portela, Juan A.
Ding, Jian
Ibarrondo, Oliver
Levi, Dennis M.
author_facet Martín, Santiago
Portela, Juan A.
Ding, Jian
Ibarrondo, Oliver
Levi, Dennis M.
author_sort Martín, Santiago
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was (1) to implement a test for binocular imbalance in a Virtual Reality headset, (2) to assess its testability, reliability and outcomes in a population of clinical patients and (3) to evaluate the relationships of interocular acuity difference, stereoacuity and binocular imbalance to amblyogenic risk factors. 100 volunteers (6 to 70 years old, mean 21.2 ± 16.2), 21 with no amblyogenic risk factors and 79 with amblyopia or a history of amblyopia participated. Participants were classified by amblyogenic risk factor (24 anisometropic, 25 strabismic and 30 mixed) and, for those with strabismus, also by refractive response (16 accommodative and 39 non-accommodative). We characterized our sample using three variables, called the ‘triplet’ henceforth: interocular acuity difference, stereoacuity and imbalance factor. Binocular imbalance showed high test-retest reliability (no significant difference between test and retest in a subgroup, n = 20, p = 0.831); was correlated with Worth 4 dots test (r = 0.538, p<0.0001); and correlated with both interocular acuity difference (r = 0.575, p<0.0001) and stereoacuity (r = 0.675, p<0.0001). The mean values of each variable of the triplet differed depending on group classification. Mixed and non-accommodative groups showed the worst mean values compared with the other groups. Among participants with strabismus, strabismic vs mixed subgroups did not show significant differences in any variable of the triplet, whereas the accommodative vs non-accommodative subgroups showed significant differences in all of them. According to a univariate logistic model, any variable of the triplet provides a good metric for differentiating patients from controls, except for binocular imbalance for anisometropic subgroup. The proposed binocular imbalance test is feasible and reliable. We recommend monitoring amblyopia clinically not only considering visual acuity, but also stereoacuity and interocular imbalance. Stereoacuity on its own fails because of the high percentage of patients with no measurable stereoacuity. Binocular imbalance may help to fill that gap.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7446887
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74468872020-08-26 Evaluation of a Virtual Reality implementation of a binocular imbalance test Martín, Santiago Portela, Juan A. Ding, Jian Ibarrondo, Oliver Levi, Dennis M. PLoS One Research Article The purpose of this study was (1) to implement a test for binocular imbalance in a Virtual Reality headset, (2) to assess its testability, reliability and outcomes in a population of clinical patients and (3) to evaluate the relationships of interocular acuity difference, stereoacuity and binocular imbalance to amblyogenic risk factors. 100 volunteers (6 to 70 years old, mean 21.2 ± 16.2), 21 with no amblyogenic risk factors and 79 with amblyopia or a history of amblyopia participated. Participants were classified by amblyogenic risk factor (24 anisometropic, 25 strabismic and 30 mixed) and, for those with strabismus, also by refractive response (16 accommodative and 39 non-accommodative). We characterized our sample using three variables, called the ‘triplet’ henceforth: interocular acuity difference, stereoacuity and imbalance factor. Binocular imbalance showed high test-retest reliability (no significant difference between test and retest in a subgroup, n = 20, p = 0.831); was correlated with Worth 4 dots test (r = 0.538, p<0.0001); and correlated with both interocular acuity difference (r = 0.575, p<0.0001) and stereoacuity (r = 0.675, p<0.0001). The mean values of each variable of the triplet differed depending on group classification. Mixed and non-accommodative groups showed the worst mean values compared with the other groups. Among participants with strabismus, strabismic vs mixed subgroups did not show significant differences in any variable of the triplet, whereas the accommodative vs non-accommodative subgroups showed significant differences in all of them. According to a univariate logistic model, any variable of the triplet provides a good metric for differentiating patients from controls, except for binocular imbalance for anisometropic subgroup. The proposed binocular imbalance test is feasible and reliable. We recommend monitoring amblyopia clinically not only considering visual acuity, but also stereoacuity and interocular imbalance. Stereoacuity on its own fails because of the high percentage of patients with no measurable stereoacuity. Binocular imbalance may help to fill that gap. Public Library of Science 2020-08-21 /pmc/articles/PMC7446887/ /pubmed/32822405 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238047 Text en © 2020 Martín et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Martín, Santiago
Portela, Juan A.
Ding, Jian
Ibarrondo, Oliver
Levi, Dennis M.
Evaluation of a Virtual Reality implementation of a binocular imbalance test
title Evaluation of a Virtual Reality implementation of a binocular imbalance test
title_full Evaluation of a Virtual Reality implementation of a binocular imbalance test
title_fullStr Evaluation of a Virtual Reality implementation of a binocular imbalance test
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of a Virtual Reality implementation of a binocular imbalance test
title_short Evaluation of a Virtual Reality implementation of a binocular imbalance test
title_sort evaluation of a virtual reality implementation of a binocular imbalance test
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7446887/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32822405
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238047
work_keys_str_mv AT martinsantiago evaluationofavirtualrealityimplementationofabinocularimbalancetest
AT portelajuana evaluationofavirtualrealityimplementationofabinocularimbalancetest
AT dingjian evaluationofavirtualrealityimplementationofabinocularimbalancetest
AT ibarrondooliver evaluationofavirtualrealityimplementationofabinocularimbalancetest
AT levidennism evaluationofavirtualrealityimplementationofabinocularimbalancetest