Abstract
The intricate interrelationships between visual acuity (VA) and stereopsis depend on an array of factors, incorporating the nature of vision impairment, its manifestation (monocular versus binocular), and the classification of stereopsis test symbols used. The objectives of this study were to methodically dissect these multifaceted interactions by simulating a diverse range of vision loss conditions. Thirty medical students with normal vision were subjected to simulated vision loss through opacification and blurring methodologies. Stereopsis was assessed at a distance using both contour-based and random-dot-based symbols under equal binocular and varied monocular VA conditions. In this study, opacification consistently affected stereopsis more than blurring at equivalent VA reductions. However, this difference was absent in contour-based symbols under binocular vision impairment conditions. Significant differences in stereopsis emerged between monocular and binocular vision within the opacification contour-based groups. These differences were less evident in the opacification and blurring groups using random-dot-based patterns. In terms of symbols, the contour-based test demonstrated superior results to the random-dot-based test, particularly under decreased VA. In sum, the method of VA reduction and the choice of stereogram significantly impact distance stereopsis outcomes. This understanding can guide clinical assessments of stereopsis in individuals with varying visual impairments.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.